2006-03-29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 29, 2006
INDEX
Area Variance No. 86-2005 Bradford Neron
1.
Tax Map No. 308.12-1-19
Area Variance No. 18-1006 Ken Kambar 2.
Tax Map No. 240.6-1-16
Area Variance No. 19-2006 Bruce E. Granger 10.
Tax Map No. 297.7-1-4.1; 297.7-1-4.2
Area Variance No. 20-2006 Martha Schmulbach 23.
Tax Map No. 227.17-2-12
Use Variance No. 21-2006 JABCO, Inc. 36.
Tax Map No. 303.20-2-36
Area Variance No. 15-2006 Gary R. & Becky L. Hicks 43.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-7
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO
BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE
FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL
OF SAID MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SPECIAL MEETING
MARCH 29, 2006
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
CHARLES MC NULTY
ALLAN BRYANT
JOYCE HUNT
RICHARD GARRAND, JR., ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ROY URRICO
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2005 SEQRA TYPE II BRADFORD NERON OWNER(S):
BRADFORD NERON ZONING LI-1A LOCATION 11 EAST DRIVE APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO REPLACE A 924 SQ. FT. SINGLE WIDE MOBILE HOME WITH A 1,522 SQ.
FT. DOUBLE-WIDE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. RES. SET FOR TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 19, 2005, BP 2001-153
MOBILE HOME AV 2-2001, TOWN BOARD RES. NO. 4, 2001 REVOCABLE PERMIT TO
LOCATE A MOBILE HOME OUTSIDE OF A MOBILE HOME COURT. WARREN CO.
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-1-19 SECTION 179-4-030
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, before we begin, I do have one administrative piece of
correspondence to deal with, and that deals with Area Variance No. 86-2005. The applicant
was invited, on three separate occasions, to appear before this Board, and in each instance
failed to appear. So what we’re going to do is go through this, and what I will do, on reaching
a motion, I will assume the responsibility of moving a motion.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 86-2005, Bradford Neron, Meeting Date: December 28,
2005 “Project Location: 11 East Drive Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes to replace a 924 sq. ft. (single-wide) mobile home with a 1,522 double-wide.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests:
15-feet of front setback relief, from the 50-foot minimum
11-feet of side setback relief (S.-side), from the 30-foot minimum
24-feet of side setback relief (N.-side), from the 30-foot minimum
11-feet of rear setback relief, from the 30-foot minimum
All relief per § 179-4-030, for the LI-zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
TB resolution no. 580, 2005: Approved 12/19/05, request permit for the double-wide
(attached).
AV 2-2001: Approved 1/17/01, for similar relief as this application, for the siting of a mobile
home.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
TB resolution no. 4, 2001: Approved 1/8/01, authorizing revocable permit to locate a mobile
home outside of a mobile home park.
Staff comments:
AV 2-2001, required less side setback relief (N.-side), 11-feet, this application requests 24-feet
of same. However, less front setback relief is required, previous approval was for 25-feet, this
proposal requests 15-feet. The other two setbacks, side yard (S-side) and rear yard, remain
constant for both applications, specifically both applications sought 19-feet of relief each, side
and rear setbacks.
The neighboring lots in this neighborhood (East and West Drives) are all comparable size to
the applicant’s lot, ranging from .15-acre to .3-acre. The LI-1A zoning requirements seem to
be restrictive for the small residential lots in this area.”
MR. ABBATE-Board members, let me start with this, Mr. Bradford Neron, 11 East Drive,
are you here this evening? If you are, would you be kind enough, please, to come to the table,
speak into the microphone and identify yourself and place of residence, please. Is Mr. Neron
here this evening? Okay. Apparently not. All right. Then I’m going to move on and ask if
any members of the Board have any questions concerning Area Variance No. 86-2005?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question of Staff. Was there a public notice sent for
this? Is one required?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Public notices were sent out. Mr. Neron notified our office stating that
he wishes to withdraw his application. As of today, at the end of the business day, we hadn’t
received that withdrawal. The Zoning Administrator stated that either the application could
be addressed at tonight’s meeting, whatever way the Board wishes, or we could wait for the
withdrawal letter from Mr. Neron. So, it’s at Mr. Chairman’s discretion.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Does that satisfy you?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance
No. 86-2006, and if there’s anyone in the public who wishes to address this, would you be kind
enough to please raise your hand. I will invite you to sit at the table and ask you to speak
into the microphone and identify yourself and your place of residence. Do I see any hands?
There are no hands raised. Now I’m going to ask members of the Board if they have any
comments regarding Area Variance No. 86-2005. There appear to be no comments. The
public hearing is now closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And again, I’m going to remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that
State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered. I’m going to
assume now, as Chairman, and take the initiative to move a motion.
MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AREA VARIANCE NO. 86-2005 BRADFORD
NERON, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan
Bryant:
11 East Drive.
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, the only reason I’m reluctantly voting is that I’m not sure we’re
doing it correctly, but I agree it should be denied. I mean, the man has not shown up three
times, and I hear the intent, but we haven’t heard that face to face, that’s all, but I have no
problem.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I will assume complete responsibility.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 86-2005, to deny without prejudice, is seven,
yes, zero, no. Area Variance No. 86-2005 is denied without prejudice.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2006 SEQRA TYPE II KEN KAMBAR AGENT(S): KEVIN C.
SPECK OWNER(S): KEN & DIANE KAMBAR ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 27
HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 138 SQ. FT. SHED
ROOF ONTO THE FRONT OF A NEW HOUSE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. NOT.AP1-2005; AV 1-2005; SPR 24-2004; AV
18-2004; AV 57-2003; AV 8-2002; BP 2005-509 SFD; BP 2005-046 DEMO SFD; BP 2002-466 3
DECKS; BP 2002-143 DOCK; BP 2001-659 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
MARCH 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 240.6-1-16 SECTION 179-4-030
KEN & DIANE KAMBAR, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2006, Ken Kambar, Meeting Date: March 29, 2006
“Project Location: 27 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 138 sq. ft. shed roof on the front of the existing residence.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 16-feet of side setback relief (S. side), where 20-feet is the minimum,
per § 179-4-030, for the WR-1A zone.
The applicant identifies on the site plan the proposed side setback as 5.4-feet, which appears
to be the existing setback (AV 1-2005), the porch roof appears to be closer to the sideline,
therefore the applicant needs to identify the correct dimension from the proposed to the side
property line, and the amount of relief requested.
Additionally, a revised FAR worksheet has been requested. The numbers given do not
correspond with the building permit (BP 2005-509) for the new residence and exceed the
maximum 22% FAR, a variance may be required.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2005-509 (replaces BP 2004-666): Issued 3/15/05 for a 3,131 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
AV 1-2005: Approved 1/19/05 for 14.6-feet of side setback relief, for a new 3,839 sq. ft. SFD
with attached garage.
BP 2004-666: Issued 10/15/04 for a 1,944 sq. ft. residential addition with 3-car attached
garage.
SP 24-2004: Approved 6/15/04 for expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of
a 1,795 sq. ft. addition.
AV 18-2004: Approved 3/24/04 for 14.6-feet of side setback relief and relief from the
continuation requirements for the expansion of a 1,570 sq. ft. dwelling to 3,838.6 sq. ft.,
which includes an 880.6 sq. ft. attached garage.
Staff comments:
This request for a 138 porch roof encroaches further into the side setback (see AV 1-2005).
The most recent approval was for a 3,839 sq. ft. dwelling. The submitted FAR indicates an
existing 3,966.4 sq. ft. of existing floor area, exceeding the maximum 22% FAR by 27.71 sq.
ft. This proposal would increase the total floor area by another 138 sq. ft. A variance may be
needed from this requirement as well.”
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
March 8, 2006 Project Name: Kambar, Ken Owner(s): Ken & Diane Kambar ID Number:
QBY-06-AV-18 County Project#: Mar06-32 Community: Queensbury Zoning: WR-1A
Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 138 sq. ft. shed roof onto the front
of a new house. Relief requested from side yard setback requirements. Site Location: 27
Hanneford Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.6-1-16 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The
applicant proposes to construct a 138 sq. ft. roof over a porch area to match existing roof over
hang on the garage. The roof is 5 +/- ft. from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is
required. The information submitted shows the location of the new roof and the house
elevation. The applicant explains the new roof would be consistent with the garage roof.
Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted.
Staff recommends no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed by Richard C. Merrill, Warren County Planning Board 3/10/06.
MR. ABBATE-Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 18-2006 please approach the table,
speak into the microphone, and for the record would you be kind enough to identify yourself
and your place of residence, please.
MR. KAMBAR-Hi. My name’s Ken Kambar. This is my wife, Diana. Every time I come
here I’m hoping it’s the last time I’m here. This is a case of probably the architect didn’t
have any foresight in seeing what could be done here, and after we got the building up, you
know, it looks like something’s missing. So, all we wanted to do is extend that six foot roof
over to the end of the building and it would cut that tall boxy look of the building in half, and
match what we did on the garage, and for that we need a variance. Now we had a terrible
experience with our first builder, which we suffered quite a large financial loss. What he, he
started the foundation and putting the forms in, the old fashion way with plywood, and what
he ended up doing was he moved the foundation over at the front end, on the lakeside, a foot
or maybe a little more, and on the east side, about a foot and a half. So he moved the house
over towards the center of the lot, which is probably good from a side setback standpoint, and
he twisted it slightly forward towards the lake. So we still, you know, we’re further, the
house itself is further within the side setback than what we originally asked for. The porch
comes out, and since the house is on an angle, the roof comes out and it comes back to the
original setback site that was approved before. So essentially it’s a straightforward thing. It
would improve the look of the house, I think substantially, and therefore maybe have a
positive effect on the neighborhood as well.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now I’m assuming you’re not represented by counsel.
MR. KAMBAR-I’m not.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine.
MR. KAMBAR-The builder was supposed to come. He couldn’t come tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, the reason I say that is since you’re not represented by counsel, I
give you somewhat of a little leeway that anytime during the hearing, if there’s something
you feel you may have forgotten to tell us, don’t hesitate. Raise your hand and you’ll be
more than welcome to assert that information into the record, and if there’s anything, during
the course of the hearing, you don’t understand, stop us, and I’ll be more than happy to
explain it to you.
MR. KAMBAR-Thank you. I appreciate that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do any members of the Board have questions for the appellant?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions. Staff notes point out a
discrepancy in the Floor Area Ratio worksheet. Do you want to address that?
MR. KAMBAR-I called my builder about that, and I didn’t have anything to do with this.
He submitted it, and he did go over this with Craig Brown, I think, and I called him today
while I was reviewing this. I noticed there was a discrepancy, and he didn’t have any copies
of his notes that he submitted, but I can tell you that the house is not bigger than it originally
was submitted to be. In fact, it might be slightly smaller.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. BRYANT-So what you’re saying is that the original calculation was incorrect? The
original calculation that was approved was incorrect?
MR. KAMBAR-No, that’s correct. This calculation of 2998.
MR. BRYANT-Of 3966, that’s not correct?
MR. KAMBAR-Well, that might be including the garage. I don’t know if that’s misleading
as to being just the house, because there’s no way it could be that much. That definitely
includes the garage.
MR. ABBATE-We can clear that up real fast. Staff, is that included, the 3964.4 square feet,
is the garage included in that, in your calculations?
MR. BRYANT-It doesn’t show on the worksheet, okay.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right, and I think that I only went as far as looking at this to notice
that right now it appears to be over, and no relief has been requested for Floor Area Ratio.
That’s not why the Kambars are here tonight.
MR. BRYANT-Right.
MRS. BARDEN-But this probably should be looked at further, and that’s why I asked for a
new Floor Area Ratio worksheet. So they can come up with the real numbers and we’ll look
at it again, and if it’s over, it might have to come back.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. The second question is relative to what you’re going to do underneath
the roof. I mean, you’ve got a little stoop there coming out of the door.
MR. KAMBAR-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Are you going to extend that, now, the whole length?
MR. KAMBAR-Yes, the same distance. It’s six feet off of the building. I’m just going to
extend it straight across.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to pour concrete, now, in the front of the building, six feet?
MR. KAMBAR-No. Maybe either patio block, the foundation isn’t very far out of the
ground.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not understanding, what’s underneath that roof? That’s what I want to
know.
MR. KAMBAR-Either it’s going to be patio blocks or maybe pressure treated wood,
practically on the ground.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, any other questions from members of the Board? No other
questions? Okay. Very well. I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No.
18-2006, and if we have any folks in the public who wish to be heard on this, would you be
kind enough to raise your hands, please, and I will recognize you and ask you to come
forward. Do we have anyone in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 18-
2006? Once, twice, three times? I don’t see any hands.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine. Now I’m going to move on, and I’m going to ask members to
offer their comments, and I would like to inform the public that the comments that are
offered by the members of this Board are directed to the Chairman only, and comments
expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. I’m now going to ask
members to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 18-2006. May I respectfully
remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with the evidence
which appears on the record to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
be specifically stated. This is necessary for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any
position you may take must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not
simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project, and due process guarantees that
government ensures a fair and open process, and Board members make decisions on reliable
evidence contained in the record of Board deliberations. Do I have a volunteer? Okay.
MR. STONE-I have a question first, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. STONE-It seems, in looking at Staff notes, that there are some serious questions about
this application, and I’m not sure how we can even consider acting on it when there’s a
question about the Floor Area Ratio, which is the correct number, is relief required. How do
we handle the?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I think that’s an excellent point, and I think this is the perfect
opportunity for members to raise these issues on the record, and if we do that, then we can
make a decision which direction we go in afterwards. Good point.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, can I address that question?
MR. ABBATE-By all means, yes.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Stone. There are a lot of questions. When you look at the
2005 resolution, relative to your original relief, it clearly states that you’ve got a 3839 square
foot two story house, which includes 881 square feet of garage, and if you look at your
worksheet, no garage is included and you’re still over and there is a discrepancy. So it’s
obvious that the applicant’s going to have to come back with another application relative to
the additional Floor Area Ratio, but I think that we can address the porch issue that has
come before us, and I’d be willing to go forward.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-While we’re working on that question, the other issue in the paragraph
above in the Staff notes says that the site plan, proposed side setback is 5.4 feet, but it goes on
to say that the porch roof appears to be closer to the side line. Therefore, the applicant needs
to identify the correct dimension from the proposed side property line, and the amount of
relief requested, and I don’t know if we’ve done that or not.
MR. ABBATE-And then that’s why I say, ladies and gentlemen of the Board, this would be a
perfect opportunity to raise these issues in the event we decide, that I make an offer for,
provide three options for the appellant, prior to reaching that point. So I think it’s a perfect
opportunity to raise these issues. Mr. Stone has raised some issues. Mr. McNulty has raised
some issues. Mr. Bryant has raised some issues. Do we have any other comments?
MR. STONE-I have one other question.
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. STONE-And I’m sure Mr. Kambar is going to tell me, but I’m going to ask anyway.
The garage will come down?
MR. KAMBAR-The old garage?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. KAMBAR-As soon as they paint the inside of that new one, in fact, Joel Clugstone is
taking it away.
MR. STONE-Okay. I knew that, but I want to be sure because I was surprised to see it.
MR. KAMBAR-It’s in the driveway.
MR. ABBATE-And what we will do, to make Mr. Stone feel better and to make sure the
appellant understands, that will be a condition.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. KAMBAR-That was from the beginning.
MR. STONE-It was a condition from the beginning.
MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. No problem. Ladies and gentlemen on the Board, any other
questions or comments you’d like to address? None? Okay. Let me move on, then. The
public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 18-2006.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-Now, I’m going to move on. I’m going to remind the members that we have
the task of balancing the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that
State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered, but I’m going
to move on, and I’m going to say to the appellant that we can go through a vote, but I’m
going to offer you three options. We can continue, but hear me out. Apparently, I would
hope that you realize that based upon the questions that were raised this evening, there is
some doubt, a lot of doubt, and when there is doubt, there’s also the probability of a denial, if
you will. That’s not always the case, but there’s a possibility. So I’m going to ask you if you
would like to accept three options that I’m going to offer you. I can offer you an option to
table your appeal for the next available date. I can offer you the option of withdrawing your
appeal. I can offer you the option that we continue to hear your appeal. Now, let me say this
to you. Please recognize that the choice is yours, and only yours to decide. You have the
right to reject any of the suggestions that I have made without prejudice, please.
MR. KAMBAR-May I ask one question?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. KAMBAR-I understand there’s a discrepancy in the numbers, and I agree that there is,
and what my question is, is that, if the Board were to decide, assuming the numbers were
correct, and I will get them corrected, if the Board was to decide in favor, with that
assumption, and with the stipulation that these numbers get rectified, I’m just wondering if
that’s a possibility.
MR. ABBATE-We won’t address that. That’s hypothetical. We must base our decisions on
the evidence contained in the record, and I’m not going to go that way.
MR. KAMBAR-I was going to say, it wouldn’t be effective unless I rectified the numbers.
MR. ABBATE-I asked you, you have three options, sir. Do you want me to go over them
again for you?
MR. KAMBAR-Okay. No.
MR. BRYANT-Before the applicant makes a choice, wouldn’t it be fair to have the Board
members comment on the application?
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. BRYANT-Because, frankly, Mr. Stone and Mr. McNulty have raised some legitimate
questions. Number One is the Floor Area Ratio calculation, which is correct. Number Two,
Mr. McNulty raised the issue relative to the actual setback requirement, you know, as far as
what the relief is going to be, because the porch appears to come closer to the side setback
than the rest of the building. Frankly, this building has had so much relief, relative to
setbacks and Floor Area Ratio that I would not be willing to approve an addition to the
porch in any shape or fashion.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-So, you know, I just want that clear. I don’t want the applicant to come
back to the Board with the hope that it’s going to be approved when I don’t know how the
other Board members feel.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-Your position, Mr. Bryant, is well taken and it’s appropriate and it’s entirely
fair to the appellant. Gentlemen, ladies, is there anything else you’d like to say?
MR. STONE-Well, the other thing, Mr. Chairman, is that if we decided to go ahead, to make
a motion to approve, we don’t know the numbers of the variance and therefore we can’t even
write a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Let me go one step further. Based upon, in my opinion as Chairman, based
upon the lack of information that we have before us, I don’t see any way that this Board can
make an intelligent decision. Quite frankly.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. MC NULTY-I’d agree. Couple of thoughts, I guess, one for the applicant. I guess
partially to answer the questions you asked that we said we weren’t going to answer, but if I
were going to, I like the idea of your proposal on the porch, as far as the appearance. The
problem I have is not knowing for sure what figure we’re dealing with, and also, although it
may be a small increase in Floor Area Ratio, nevertheless, it’s something else, and I think we
ought to know what we’re dealing with, sum total, instead of asking you to come back three
or four times to get little pieces of variance, and beyond that, it strikes me that, really, this
kind of thing, I would hope maybe in the future Staff could stop it before it gets this far. My
first reaction when I saw the Staff notes, and granted the Staff notes are written well after the
application is filed, but why are we even having this before us until we have this pinned
down?
MR. ABBATE-That’s an excellent question, Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-We’re wasting the applicant’s time as well as ours, really.
MR. ABBATE-And I can assure you, those members of the Board know I’m not bashful, and
I can assure you that tomorrow morning at the debriefing, Sue, would you remind me to raise
this question as gently as I possibly can tomorrow. Thank you very much.
MRS. BARDEN-I can at least explain the side setback, and I guess, again, that was the relief
that was requested by the applicant, and I asked the question about Floor Area Ratio,
thinking that they would have to come back for that, and you could certainly proceed on the
side setback. I did speak to Kevin Speck, and he did say that the relief requested is accurate.
However, the relief requested, again, does not match up with the map, and Mr. Kambar did
say that the house has been moved over a little bit, and so that dimension is actually, that 5.4
feet, is the dimension from the porch roof to the side, but you might want to have a surveyed
map or a plot plan that reflects the application. So, the relief apparently is accurate, but the
map doesn’t really reflect that.
MR. STONE-I would agree, Mr. Chairman. We have an opportunity that we don’t usually
have until the place is totally complete, and getting an as built survey. Right now there is
enough (lost word) to know exactly where it sits on the lot and I think we ought to know
where it sits on the lot and the size of the building that’s already been built.
MR. ABBATE-Well, at the debriefing tomorrow, I will address not only the Executive
Director but the Zoning Administrator, and I will indicate that I feel it’s the opinion of the
Board that we have an on-site survey, providing the applicant wishes to, assuming that the
applicant wishes to table this.
MR. KAMBAR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and understand something else. Why we’re going through this long
dissertation is for your benefit. We want to make sure that you understand where we’re
coming from so that we don’t give you false hope.
MR. KAMBAR-I understand completely.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. KAMBAR-But the side setback is essentially five foot three and thirteen sixteenths,
which is essentially the same.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, well, you can include that the next time you come before us in the
information. Is there anything else anybody on the Board would like to raise, any other
questions or make any comments? Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Kambar, may I have a decision.
What would you like us to do for you.
MR. KAMBAR-Well, under the circumstances, I don’t have any choice. I have to table it.
MR. ABBATE-You wish to table it, and I will honor your request, and normally I ask the
Board to clarify any conditions. They’ve already done. They beat me to the punch. So I
think it’s quite clear, and if it’s not quite clear to you now, now is the time to ask the
members of the Board what do you need, because once you leave here, it’s stamped. So if you
have any questions, there’s anything unclear that any Board members have said, now’s the
time to ask.
MR. KAMBAR-Number One, I understand that the numbers don’t match up, and I noticed
that when I came in here. Now the second builder is the second builder. So evidently he just
made a mistake. My question is what exactly do I need to bring back with me or submit
again?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Here’s what I suggest you do. I’m going to ask that Staff provide
you with the minutes of the meeting. That way there, you will know, word for word, what
each member has said, prior to you coming back to us again. How’s that? Here’s what you
can do. You know where Town Hall is located.
MR. KAMBAR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You go downstairs in the basement, there’s a dungeon down there. Turn
right, and any of those folks down there, they have lovely ladies down there, they will be
more than happy to help you, and if you say to them that the Chairman of the Zoning Board
of Appeals asked that you present me with the minutes of the meeting for Area Variance No.
18-2006, and they will do it for you.
MR. KAMBAR-I’ve done this before.
MR. ABBATE-Ladies. Okay. Sue?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Just stop down and see me.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. So, now you understand, then, from what you tell me, you
understand there’s no misinterpretation in what we’re looking for. Now, here’s what I’d like
you to do. I would like you to go down and get the minutes of the meeting, and then I would
like you to, prior to the 15 of April, submit a new application with all the information that
th
we have addressed this evening , and once you do that, by the 15 of April, then we will try
th
and schedule you for May the 24. Get it to the Staff by the 15 of April, and I’ll put you in
thth
to the May 24, if I can do it. I think I can. I’ll put you into the May 24 hearing. That’s as
thth
soon as I can do it. Fair enough? Okay, folks? Any other questions?
MR. KAMBAR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Folks, thank you so very much.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, could you re-open the public hearing, please, if you’re going
to table.
MR. ABBATE-You want to re-open it? Yes, all right. I’ll be happy to re-open it. I’m sure
there’s a good reason. I won’t question that. I’m going to re-open the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 18-2006, and now, Staff, may I ask why.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. BARDEN-Well, you’re asking for new information, so.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-You’re right. She’s absolutely correct.
MS. HEMINGWAY-We’ll re-advertise and send notices out.
MR. ABBATE-We’ll keep the public hearing open.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Mr. Chairman, may we please have a formal tabling motion.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to do the motion right now. Did you want to be heard, sir?
JOHN BEALS
MR. BEALS-I’m the next door neighbor. I’m John Beals.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to be heard?
MR. BEALS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Here’s what I would ask you to do for me, please. Would you be kind
enough to sit down at the table, speak into the microphone and do us a favor, identify
yourself, tell us your place of residence, and then you can go on.
MR. BEALS-My name is John Beals. I live at 25 Hanneford Road, and I’m Mr. Kambar’s
next door neighbor. I’m aware that the house was moved over a foot. I am a surveyor,
incidentally. I’m not registered right now, but I was for many years with George A. Fuller
Merritt Scott Corporation.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BEALS-And through an error with the former contractor, they moved the whole house
over approximately a foot, and I have no objection whatsoever to this roof. In fact, I think it
would make it look a lot better than it is now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BEALS-And I just wanted you people to be aware of the fact that I have no objections
to what he’s proposed at all, and I’m the one who would feel it the most.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to tell us?
MR. BEALS-Well, what he wants to do, it’s all right with me. I have no objection.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Your comments are in the record and duly noted.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman. Could you tell me, as you’re looking at
that photograph, it’s moved which way, towards the left or towards the right?
MR. BEALS-It would move toward the right. It was moved that way.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So that the relief required on this side was less. Is that correct?
MR. BEALS-The whole house was moved over to the north, which is on this side in that
picture.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you so very much.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2006 KEN KAMBAR, Introduced by Charles
Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
27 Hanneford Road. Tabled to a hearing on May 24, 2006.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 18-2006 is seven yes, zero no. The
motion is carried. Area Variance No. 18-2006 is tabled for 24 May 2006.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2006 SEQRA TYPE II BRUCE E. GRANGER OWNER(S):
BRUCE E. GRANGER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 21 CHESTNUT RIDGE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES PROPERTY LINE ADJUSTMENT TO INCLUDE A SMALL 1-
BEDROOM COTTAGE ONTO 1.3 ACRES TO ALLOW TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS
ON ONE PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND HOME ON ONE LOT. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING: N/A CROSS REF. AD 2-1999 2-LOT ADMIN. SUB. LOT SIZE: 1.03
ACRES; 3.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.7-1-4.1; 297.7-1-4.2 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-4-
010
BRUCE GRANGER, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll read his letter in. “I am requesting an Area Variance for 21
Chestnut Ridge Road to move a property line to include a small 1-bedroom cottage onto 1.3
Acres. This one bedroom cottage has a shared driveway, shared utilities and is the same in
color as the main house. This area on Chestnut Ridge Road is zoned multi family and there
are three duplexes across the street, as well as more duplexes on the road. The total living
space for the property is 3 bedrooms and two ¾ baths. I am not making any changes to the
two structures. These two buildings have been in place for about 40 years. Both the main
house and the small cottage share utilities. The water for the cottage comes from the main
house and the electricity comes in through the cottage for both the house and the cottage. I
have attached the advertising from the realtor who sold me the property that shows that the
Main house included a cottage as part of the property. I did not find out that the cottage was
on a separate property until after the contract was signed and the attorney review had
passed. I have done a tremendous amount of improvements to the property and made the
road safer by removing a large hedge row that blocked the view of traffic on the road.”
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2006, Bruce E. Granger, Meeting Date: March 29,
2006 “Project Location: 21 Chestnut Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two adjoining parcels. With that, the
existing main house and carriage house would be located on the same 1.28-acre parcel.
Relief Required:
The main house is currently sited on the 1.003-acre parcel. The carriage house is on the 3.292-
acre parcel. The lot line adjustment would put both residences on a 1.28-acre parcel and the
3.01-acre parcel would be vacant.
The applicant requests relief to allow a second dwelling on one lot, per §179-4-010 C,6.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AD 2-1999: Approved 5/11/98, for a 2-lot residential subdivision.
Staff comments:
This property was subdivided, putting the two dwellings on separate parcels.
Before the subdivision, were both dwellings on the combined parcels (4.295-acres)?
The applicant has submitted supplemental information indicating that the carriage house is
an accessory structure (converted detached garage?) to the main house, they share utilities,
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
water and electricity and a driveway. Apparently, this is also how the property was
advertised for sale when the applicant purchased it and the adjoining parcel.
Additional supportive information shows that multi-family dwellings and duplexes are
present in the surrounding neighborhood. Both of these uses are subject to site plan review
by the Planning Board in the SR zone.
While it may be possible to add more area to the proposed 1.28-acre parcel, future access to
the larger parcel and the amount of road frontage for this lot should be considered.
The cottage, on the newly created lot, would meet the setback requirements of the SR zone.
What is the future plan for the 3.01-acre vacant lot?”
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would the petitioner of Area Variance
No. 19-2006 please approach the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify
yourself and your place of residence, please.
MR. GRANGER-My name is Bruce Granger. I’m the parcel owner. This is my mom, Anne
Granger. She also is the parcel owner. Residence is 21 Chestnut Ridge Road.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Proceed.
MR. GRANGER-This area is zoned two family. Directly across the street there are three
duplexes, and they’re on less than two acres. So it’s two residences on one. This cottage
doesn’t even have a full kitchen. It’s a microwave and a sink and a small refrigerator. It’s a
three-quarter bath. It’s only one bedroom. It’s on a slab and it has no garage. It’s very
small. It’s only 767 square feet. As read into the notes, there’s shared utilities. The
electricity comes into the cottage and then goes underground to the main house. The water is
shared. So to me they’re not separate houses. I can’t sell the cottage on its own. It would
have no water, and then what would I do about the electricity for the main house. Why I’m
citing relief for this is this is how it was sold to me and my mother, and actually this is one of
the realtors here, Jeff York, advertised it and sold it that way to me. I missed the attorney
review, taking the trust of Jeff York, who’s been in this Town for 20 some years selling real
estate, because I went back to my job in Hartford, Connecticut, and by the time I got back to
get the contract to my lawyer a week later, the review period passed. I paid for the lot. I
paid extra for that, and I’m trying to get it back. As it stands right now, I could, and I’ve
spoken to the land surveyor. I can make a one acre lot for the cottage, and get it drawn out.
It would be a limited frontage for it, and what that would do would take this building lot and
push it so that four neighbors would have a house in their back yard. If this is approved, that
this stays there, that this boundary line adjustment to put the cottage on, it puts the house
on Chestnut Ridge Road where it should be, not pushed back, way back into the acreage, and
it has no effect on the neighbors’ backyard. So it keeps it conforming across the front of
Chestnut Ridge Road, and conforming that the houses line up. I can get it approved this
way, you know, that I have a whole full acre for the cottage, but all that does is push the
house, if somebody wants to build it, push it back into the open space, which is six people’s
back yard, instead of leaving it open. Now, you all know the greenhouse with the pond, the
new one on Ridge Road, he wants to back part of that land, because his house only has about
50 feet of back yard. He wants an acre behind that to leave it open so nothing gets built back
there, and the other relief is, you know, it is my fault. I guess it’s my attorney’s fault, about
the review period, but I did pay for this lot as a building lot, and that’s how it was sold to me,
two separate things, and I’m not trying to change the neighborhood. I mean, the
neighborhood is two family. I mean, there’s three duplexes right across the road from me,
and to me it’s not a separate house. I mean, it doesn’t have a basement. It doesn’t have a
garage. It doesn’t have its own water, and it’s less than 800 square feet, and the main house
is only 1600 square feet. Both of them only have one bath. I mean, we’re not talking, I’m
trying to make a big, you know, monstrosity here.
MR. ABBATE-Now, obviously you’re not represented by counsel this evening.
MR. GRANGER-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So I will say the same thing to you. Any time during this evening, if
you or your mom feel that you may have forgotten to tell us something which may add to
your case, don’t hesitate. Stop us and we certainly will allow it. If at any time during the
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
proceedings, you don’t understand what we’re doing, don’t hesitate, stop us, and we’ll be
more than happy to explain what we’re doing. Fair enough?
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then I’m going to continue. Do any members of the Board have any
questions for the appellant?
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I have a question for Staff.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Shoot.
MR. BRYANT-This is an SR, what?
MRS. BARDEN-SR-1A.
MR. BRYANT-SR-1?
MR. GRANGER-Which is?
MR. ABBATE-Single residence, one acre.
MR. GRANGER-Multi-family.
MR. ABBATE-No, no. Single residence dash one means single residence one acre.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s Suburban Residential. I believe some multi-family uses are allowed in
the zone.
MR. ABBATE-What did you say it was?
MRS. BARDEN-Suburban Residential.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MRS. BARDEN-Only residential uses, but.
MR. BRYANT-So if it’s Suburban Residential, why does he require a variance to have two
living units on one lot?
MRS. BARDEN-They’re two separate dwellings. So the relief is to have the second dwelling
on the same lot.
MR. MC NULTY-He could have a two or three apartment building?
MR. GRANGER-Right.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s right.
MR. MC NULTY-Single building, but this is two residences, two separate residences on one
lot. That’s what he would have.
MRS. BARDEN-Because they’re a couple of hundred feet apart.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Do we have any other members of the Board who would like to ask
Mr. Granger questions concerning Area Variance No. 19-2006?
MR. STONE-Well, I’m just trying to understand. You threw a lot at us in terms of the back
lot. I mean, you’re not talking about moving that detached little house. So I didn’t
understand how people would get a house behind them that’s under your control.
MR. GRANGER-Well, I’m on the curve.
MR. STONE-I know.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. GRANGER-I’m on the curve, and that three acre parcel is 131 feet wide on the road
frontage, and it goes back 655 feet, and by going back like that, it hits the back side of the
people that live on Ridge Road.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. GRANGER-And then on Chestnut Ridge, too. Because it curves around. So, I mean, I
don’t have to have a variance to go and make the cottage one acre and then make this a
separate building lot, but what that does is it makes the front too narrow to build a house on.
So the house would be put back in here. Do you understand?
MR. STONE-Okay. So you’re saying you would use it, you would sell it for a building lot, as
a building lot?
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to get that into the record.
MR. GRANGER-What I’m trying to do is preserve the neighborhood, as far as, the houses
stay lined up on Chestnut Ridge, instead of pushing this thing back in the property, because
it’s 655 feet deep, the lot is, and if I cut this off with making the cottage one acre, it’s going to
push it so it becomes a right of way back into the back part of the lot. Whereas if we do it
this way with the adjustment, and include the house and the cottage together, it preserves
131 feet of road frontage, so that the house can be right on Chestnut Ridge, lined up with the
other houses on the road.
MR. STONE-You mean a new house?
MR. GRANGER-A new house, if one is built.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone, may I suggest that perhaps you might want to keep that in the
back of your mind for a condition.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Do any other members of the Board have any questions for Mr. Granger, or
Mrs. Granger?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. I’ve got one.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-We’re charged with granting the least relief possible, the least relief
possible. So it doesn’t mean that necessarily we grant relief that gives you the best financial
return from your property, but a reasonable amount. It strikes me that one possible option
would be to get rid of the small cabin or the cottage, and I wonder if you could talk about
that a little bit. I mean, obviously there’s some potential rental income there if you keep it.
MR. GRANGER-It’s not rental income. My mom lives in it.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. GRANGER-I have a hardship. I’m terminally ill with cancer, and I can’t afford to tear
down a house and then buy my mother another one, or I would. This has been extremely
difficult. It took me two years to get here. I went through with the lawyers and the realtors
and everything else. As it stands right now, I’m an accountant. I make good money, you
know, I could afford the whole thing and keep it and pay the tax on it, but with my
condition, I can’t do that. That’s part of my care money, and this has been devastating to
me. I mean, you guys all saw my twin last week, my twin brother last week.
MR. STONE-That’s your twin brother. I was wondering.
MR. ABBATE-That’s your twin brother. Okay.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. GRANGER-I used to look like that. So, I mean, I’ve lost a lot of weight. I’m terribly
stressed over this. I’m at wits end on it. I mean, I got lied to by this realtor that did this nice
brochure showing the whole place, you know, and it’s just been terrible. I don’t want to live
there, but I don’t have a choice, and to grant me a line adjustment to make this the same as
the two families that are across the street is not a lot to ask, so that I can get my money back
out of this land. I don’t know how long I have. I can’t do this to my mother. I sold her
house and put her money into it. I sold my two other houses I have in Florida and moved
back here and put those monies into it. I mean, I just can’t do much more. I’ve cleaned up
the property. There was like seven to ten accidents on that curve every year. I cleaned up
and took the hedgerow out, did all that work, and now there’s none, because people can see
around it. Everybody on the road has stopped, they’ve pulled in. They think how nice it
looks, how much better it’s cleaned up, you know, I’ve made a lot of improvements to it.
MR. STONE-Let me just, going back to what the Chairman said to me. On this survey,
you’ve got an area, 3.01 acres.
MR. GRANGER-Correct.
MR. STONE-Marked out on a much bigger lot.
MR. GRANGER-I missed that.
MR. STONE-There’s some lines on the thing.
MR. GRANGER-Well, there shouldn’t be.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the 3.01 is all the way back to the back of the property?
MR. GRANGER-Correct.
MR. STONE-Because on what we have, there is an out.
MR. GRANGER-They were trying different scenarios, because technically if I take the
cottage and take the kitchen out of it, you know, I have no kitchen, then it doesn’t count and
I can switch this over without an Area Variance, and then they were talking about doing two
parcels on here, so there could be two building lots, and I don’t want to do that. I mean, I
want these people’s back yards to stay nice, and by doing that and putting this up along
Chestnut Ridge, it doesn’t affect anybody’s back yard, because the first back yard is an acre
away.
MR. STONE-Okay. So your plan, assuming everything happens, is that you would go out
around the small building we’re talking about where your mother lives?
MR. GRANGER-No. The way this is drawn here with this line, that’s the small building
right there.
MR. STONE-That’s the small building.
MR. GRANGER-That’s the small building.
MR. STONE-Okay, and therefore the back thing is a buildable lot.
MR. GRANGER-No, next door.
MR. STONE-To the west.
MR. GRANGER-So it keeps it conforming with Ridge Road.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any other questions for Mr.
Granger or Mrs. Granger? Okay. Then I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area
Variance No. 19-2006.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. BRYANT-I had the same problem, looking at this tiny little map. Just go back to, you
were just showing the lot line, just show how you’re going to divide that up.
MR. GRANGER-I have this one, too, if you’d want to see this, which shows it.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to make sure I understand which way it’s going to be divided.
MR. GRANGER-Okay. There’s the house. That’s on the curve. There’s the cottage right
there. The line goes here right now.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. GRANGER-This one might show you better.
MR. STONE-Well, that would be helpful if we could see that, yes.
MR. STONE-So right now the line goes here.
MR. GRANGER-Here.
MR. STONE-This is what you think the big house is.
MR. GRANGER-That’s the big house.
MR. STONE-And this thing has all of this.
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. STONE-And you’d like to come and extend that line down.
MR. GRANGER-No, right here instead of here.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Got it. Would you pass this map down to these folks down here,
please, so they can take a look at it.
MR. GRANGER-This is where the main house sits now. This is where the guest cottage is.
The property line is here now. I would like to move it over to here now.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Mr. Granger, now that it’s up on the screen, you might want to, just
so that everybody can see what you’re talking about. It might be helpful.
MR. GRANGER-Okay. This is the main house here now, and this is one acre of land. This is
the guest cottage right here, and we’re proposing to draw the line on the other side of the
guest cottage to include it so this becomes 1.3 acres. By doing that, the houses that align up
on Chestnut Ridge, there’s one here, one here, and then as we go around, then that makes this
front part of the building lot, and therefore the back yard of the Higley’s, the back yard of
Anne McCann, the back yard of the other people here, that stays open. There’s no effect on
them. It makes it. I can, without a variance, take and make the cottage one acre with a right
of way, and that would make it so the house would have to be built back in here, and there’s
plenty of land to do that, and it meets all the requirements and everything, and I don’t need
an Area Variance. What I’m trying to do is move this line to keep it conforming with
Chestnut Ridge and also preserve these back yards of all these people, so there is no house
back there. Any questions?
MR. BRYANT-How do we know that later on that three acres is not going to become three
building lots with right of ways?
MR. GRANGER-Because there’s not enough, you’ve got to have a certain amount of road
frontage, and an average width of a lot of 150 feet.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone raised that issue earlier as a condition.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. GRANGER-Susan and I talked about that.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now I believe, let me try it again. I’m going to open up the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 19-2006, and do we have any folks in the audience who would
like to be heard? Would you please do me a favor. Come up to the table, have a chair, speak
into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
GARY HIGLEY
MR. HIGLEY-Good evening, Board members. My name is Gary Higley. I live at 31
Chestnut Ridge Road, which on the map is in the top right hand corner there. The process of
considering a variance requests meets certain criteria that I know you all follow, and I’d just
like to review some of these questions that I’ve brought up. Number One, the benefit to the
applicant. This benefits Mr. Granger 100% monetarily. With approval, you would be giving
Mr. Granger permission to petition the Board once again for further subdivisions of his
properties. Number Two, proportion or ratio of the variance versus the Code. If granted, Mr.
Granger would be receiving 100% relief of putting two houses where one is allowed. You have
stated earlier that you request minimal relief. Number Three, impact on neighbors and
surrounding communities. Allowing two residences on one parcel would set a precedent in the
neighborhood that would substantially lower values. This is an upscale neighborhood, with
traditional, rural character. There are few neighborhoods with the openness and privacy this
one has. That is why the property values are high. Trying to cover every inch of land with a
structure is not the character of this neighborhood. The proposed line change map shows a
subdivision. It is in every one of your files. I have it. It’s showing that he wants to put two
building lots on that piece of property. It also was dated, and I’m not sure of the date on this,
July 29, 2004, is the date of this map that he submitted to you. Proposed flag shaped lots
and log asphalt driveways in the back of seven different neighbors does not fit in this
neighborhood. This proposed development would destroy views from eastern lots of existing
neighbors and replace them with rooflines, lowering property values. This 100% relief does
not coincide with the 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for Chestnut Ridge, Section Four,
R5.1, reading lot size density of Chestnut Ridge area should be approximately two acres and
consistent with lot sizes. Number Four, could the project be accomplished through
alternative methods. No, there’s no alternative. You either grant 100% relief or you don’t.
Number Five, is the alleged hardship self-created? Yes, entirely. There is no hardship to any
ordinary citizen here. In summation, balancing this request, I don’t think he passes any of
the above questions. I respectfully request that you deny this variance. Thank you very
much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Your comments are noted for the record. Do we have
any other folks in the audience who would like to be heard on Area Variance No. 19-2006?
Yes, ma’am. Would you come to the table, have a chair, speak into the microphone, please,
tell us your name and your place of residence.
BETSY BUECKING
MRS. BUECKING-My name is Betsy Buecking. Good evening. I live at 794 Ridge Road in
Queensbury, and our property abuts the northern border of the lot.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MRS. BUECKING-I’ve reviewed Mr. Granger’s application to the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals, seeking relief from the longstanding Suburban Residential One
Acre zoning for the above mentioned properties, and that’s specifically 19 and 21 Chestnut
Ridge. As an adjacent neighbor, I am strongly opposed to the granting of any request to, A,
allow more than one single family or duplex residence per lot on Chestnut Ridge Road, and/or
allow changing property boundaries for an existing residence to place that residence on less
than one acre for the following reasons. The proposed variance flies in the face of two
recommendations of the Town of Queensbury 1998 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Section
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
Four, Neighborhoods, Chestnut Ridge, and it spoke specifically to Chestnut Ridge, and it was
adopted by the Town of Queensbury Board on December 21, 1998, and to paraphrase,
clustering should not be allowed and the lot size/density should be consistent with adjacent
properties. This project would create a clear example of clustering on Chestnut Ridge Road,
which the Comprehensive Land Use Plan advisory Board in 1998 specifically deemed would
not be compatible with this Chestnut Ridge residential neighborhood. Further, this proposal
comes dangerously close to establishing condominiums. The Town of Queensbury Zoning
Ordinance, Section 179-2-010, defines condominium development as, a project of individual
dwellings, excuse me, a project of individual dwelling units or commercial manufacturing or
industrial units which may consists of, one, a part of or more than one structure wherein the
dwelling units are individually owned, each owner holding a title thereto, while retaining
together with all the other owners of the units in the project, an undivided interest in the
common facilities and areas of the buildings and grounds which are used by all the residents,
through the offering prospectus. All condominium developments shall be reviewed as a
subdivision. In the matter before this Zoning Board of Appeals, the individual residences are
individually owned, and Mr. Granger seeks permission to allow the two individually owned
residences to occupy a common parcel of land, and if there’s question regarding ownership of
the individual properties, that’s from, the most recent deeds that were filed with the County
Clerk that I could find are dated February 27, 2006, and have Mrs. Anne Granger owning 19
Chestnut Ridge, and Mr. Bruce Granger owning 21 Chestnut Ridge. The current average lot
size of adjacent properties is 2.4471 acres. That’s the combined acreage of the seven abutting
properties divided by seven, the range being .81 acres to 7.5 acres. Nineteen and Twenty-one
Chestnut Ridge Road currently have a single resident on each, a single residence each on 3.2
acres and 1 acre respectively, which is consistent with the adjacent properties. Allowing any
reduction in lot size density would be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. A
question is, has a precedent already been set on these points. I reviewed the photographs that
were included with the application, and gather that they were intended to imply that several
other property owners on Chestnut Ridge Road have been granted the relief that Mr. Granger
seeks. My research found no such evidence. There are duplexes across the road, and each is
on well more than an acre. Actually two of them are on 1.25 acres. One of them is on over 2
acres, and thus they meet the zoning requirement. The zoning requirement allows single
family residences and/or duplexes, one per lot. Other properties pictured which may have
more than one structure, but not more than one residence on a property, with the exception
of 240 Chestnut Ridge Road property, which, well, the properties that are pictured are all on
more than two acres, with the exception of the 240 Ridge Road, and that is on 1.6 acres. So
106 Chestnut Ridge Road has 2.35 acres. 164 Ridge Road has 8.63 acres, 188 Chestnut Ridge
Road has 13.61 acres, the old barn that’s being renovated is on 3 acres.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me, madam, but your time is up. However, if you wish to submit that
into the record, we will be more than happy to accept it.
MRS. BUECKING-I will do that.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who would like to address Area
Variance No. 19-2006? Do I have any other hands? Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have some letters.
BERNETTA STOKES
MRS. STOKES-My name is Bernetta Stokes and I live at 11 Chestnut Ridge Road, which is
on the west side the property that’s being discussed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MRS. STOKES-My concern is with the added density, use of the property and the traffic
situation. The curb cut in the road there is within 10 feet of my property, and the traffic on
Chestnut Ridge Road is horrendous already, and I think that would be a factor. I did submit
a letter, giving my views, and I would like to have that put into the record.
MR. ABBATE-We will indeed read that into the record, ma’am.
MRS. STOKES-Okay. Thank you.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do we have any other folks in the audience who
would like to address Area Variance No. 19-2006? Apparently not. Okay. We’ll move on,
Mr. Secretary. I do believe you mentioned we had some letters.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Would you read those into the record please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The first letter was received on March 27 from John Buecking, and
th
that’s at 794 Ridge Road. “To memorialize our strenuous objections to Granger’s
applications, generally the proposed project will cause more problems for the Town and the
contiguous neighbors, of which we are one, than it will solve. With respect to the applicant,
Granger has been a poor neighbor and will continue to be so. He has clear-cut the beautiful
butternut trees and screening that were in the stone fence between us on the erroneous
grounds that some of the trees’ branches overhung his property, therefore he was entitled to
cut them all down. He has even cut two trees NOT on his property, but ours. There is a
party in the neighborhood who heats with wood, so Granger got him to remove the wood with
no consultation of us and take it home to burn in payment. We had to counsel him on his
errors and hire a surveyor to stake the property line to indicate its proper location to him, but
not before he tore his side of the fence up for no reason. A lawsuit on our part would not be
frivolous. His removal of the natural barrier between us now gives a more unobstructed view
to buildings on his property, which is undesirable. Further, Granger felt compelled to make a
curb cut along his westerly property line, taking away part of a nice stone fence on Chestnut
Ridge Road and leaving an ugly scar, again with no consultation of the neighbor. There is no
permission or apparent use for this curb cut, he was just out one day playing with his tractor
and felt like clearing it. Granger is wanting to increase the density of usage there, which is
one residence per acre. It will absolutely ruin the character of the neighborhood, as well as
cause more ingress/egress traffic onto already busy Chestnut Ridge Road, a danger factor.
We don’t see in the application any particular benefit being sought. What is the unnecessary
hardship this will alleviate for Granger? The burden is on Granger to show this. The answer
there is none, he is merely trying to be a small land speculator. Sincerely, John Buecking”
There was a letter also received from Mr. Gary Higley at 31 Chestnut Ridge Road, and I
think he summarized that pretty well. There’s a letter also from Susan Higley at 31 Chestnut
Ridge. “I am writing to voice my objection to Mr. Granger’s request to have his parcel re-
zoned. Eight years ago my husband and I moved to Chestnut Ridge. We wanted a home in a
somewhat rural setting. We chose Chestnut Ridge for the beautiful views, the privacy, the
stone walls, the rural quality of the area and it was zoned One Acre Residential. Mr. Granger
chose to purchase on Chestnut Ridge for obviously different reasons. He has clear-cut the
majority of his property, encroached on his neighbor’s land and has shown total disregard for
the character of the neighborhood. His request to change his property line to include two
homes on 1.3 acres serves no purpose but monetary gain. Requesting 100% relief from the
code would set a precedent for further development and will only devalue our property and
that of our neighbors. The Town of Queensbury is facing many decisions regarding growth of
the community. The business district is booming and the real estate market seems to be
growing out of control with housing developments, apartment complexes, and office parks. It
is crucial to maintain the rural corridor to our community. I believe that the zoning in the
Ridge Road area should not be changed for people that want to cover every inch of land with
some sort of development. I strongly request denial of any changes to the SR-1A zoning on
Chestnut Ridge Road to anyone. Respectfully, Susan Higley” And the last letter was
received from, that was Mrs. Stokes. “My property (11 Chestnut Ridge Road), is adjacent to
the west line of Granger’s property. I strongly oppose the Grangers application to change
configuration of his lot lines to accomplish more housing density. This increased density
would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood, as well as create more traffic
concerns on Chestnut Ridge Road. The destroyed root system created by tree removal on his
property along Chestnut Ridge Road, and placing a culvert at the new road cut there, is
already causing drainage problems on my property. I am in complete agreement with all the
concerns expressed in John Buecking’s March 24, 2006 letter to you, and urge your careful
consideration of these issues. Sincerely, Bernetta Stokes” And the last one. This one was
received at Burton and Patricia Monroe at 50 Chestnut Ridge Road. “We are writing to voice
our objections to Mr. Bruce Granger’s request (19-2006) to have his parcel rezoned. Sixteen
years ago when we moved to Chestnut Ridge Road, we did so because of the beautiful views,
stone walls, rural quality of the area and the fact that it was zoned ONE ACRE
RESIDENTIAL. Mr. Granger chose to purchase 21 Chestnut Ridge Road, for obviously
different reasons. His request to change his property line to include two homes on 1.3 acres
serves no purpose but monetary gain. Requesting 100% relief from the code would set a
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
precedent for further development and will only devalue our property and that of our
neighbors. The Town of Queensbury is obviously facing many decisions regarding growth of
the community. It is crucial to maintain the rural corridor to our community, and we believe
that the zoning on Chestnut Ridge Road should not be changed for people that want to over
develop our area for personal gain. We strongly request denial of any changes to the SR-1A
zoning on Chestnut Ridge Road. Respectfully, Burton C. Monroe Patricia L. Monroe”
That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I’m going to move on and I’m going to
ask members to offer their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments
that are going to be offered by our members are directed to the Chairman, and these
comments expressed by the Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, do you want them to respond to the public?
MR. ABBATE-If you, would you like an opportunity to respond to those letters? You
certainly welcome to have it.
MR. GRANGER-Yes, I would.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. GRANGER-I know one of the maps shows like this flagpole type thing and two lots.
That’s not being done at all. That was a mistake. That actually was drawn up by Bruce
Frank that works for the Town of Queensbury, that that would be allowable because of the
size of the lot, because it is zoned one acre up there. That is not what I’m trying to do here at
all. I’m trying to preserve this as one single lot, and not split it up more, but there is enough
acreage to do it.
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else you’d like to offer?
MR. GRANGER-No.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. I’m going to continue, and I’m going to ask
members to please offer their comments on this Area Variance No. 19-2006, and again, I
respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves with
the evidence contained in the record to support our conclusions, and I’m going to also ask
that we not simply make opinions based on the subjective preferences or not liking a project.
Having said that, if anyone wishes to include, in any kind of a motion, a condition, please
clearly spell out those so that the member introducing the motion may include your condition
with clarity. So now, is there a volunteer to address Area Variance No. 19-2006? Okay. All
right, Mr. Stone, would you mind volunteering first?
MR. STONE-This is one of those things that we really hate to get into. It really sounds like a
neighborhood feud. I mean, we’re talking two pieces of property, both of which are at least
one acre in size. There are two houses on it now. According to Mr. Granger, there would be
two houses in the future. Having said that, though, I’m very concerned in the quality of the
neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood. I mean, the only way that I could even
consider voting for this would be if Mr. Granger would accept a condition that these lots
would be forever single lots, whatever size they come out to be, and that there would be no
further building on either of the two lots. Obviously the community around Mr. Granger’s
property has a number of concerns. I’m not going to go into their legitimacy, but they
certainly are concerned by what they believe is going to happen to the neighborhood if we
were to allow this thing. As I said, we’re not involved in a neighborhood feud, and I do hear a
lot of that. I am concerned, however, and this is something that a number of the neighbors
have talked about, the 100% relief, and we really don’t like 100% relief in anything, although
two houses, you either have one or you have two, and it becomes 100%. I’m still not sure
where I would come down on this thing. I think that my concern is that the neighborhood is
a lovely neighborhood. There’s no question about it. I think the neighbors are absolutely
right in their concern about changing the character. I’m not sure, however, that this simple
variance, with the conditions that I’ve asked for, would change the neighborhood. There are
two curb cuts now. Neither one, at least what I observed today, there’s a third.
MR. GRANGER-There’s three all together, two parcels, yes.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. STONE-All right, well I only saw the one that went into your driveway and then one
coming back out, by the small house. If there’s one on the other side, I didn’t look there, but
there are two in the area that I looked at, but I would like to hear the rest of the Board. I
think this is one of those situations where there are valid points raised on both sides.
However, I would like to see what the applicant will do after he listens to everybody.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Garrand, are you prepared to go next?
MR. GARRAND-I’m prepared.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. GARRAND-Looking at this, I have to wonder if the applicant could achieve this by
other means, by increasing the size of this lot. I mean, it’s 1.28 acres for both pieces of land.
Granted, it might restrict development on the further three acres. It’s always an option to
increase the size of this parcel. Will it result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood?
Given the nature of the dwellings in that area, I don’t think it’ll cause any undesired change
in the neighborhood at this point. Whether the request is substantial, I believe that’s open to
interpretation. Will it have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood?
No, at this point I don’t believe so. I don’t think it’ll have any adverse effect on the
neighborhood. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? That I’m kind of unsure about at this
point. It’s kind of an awkward parcel. So I’m not sure that there’s a whole lot else you can
do about it, maybe with the exception of increasing the parcel size for these two structures.
Basically that’s all I have.
MR. ABBATE-Are you now in the position of either approving or disapproving, or are you
unsure? What is your position?
MR. GARRAND-At this point I’d be unsure.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree, somewhat, with what Mr. Stone has said,
and I also want to repeat one of the advantages that Mr. Granger pointed out, with this type
of subdivision, and that is that it would protect the neighbors in the back of the three acres
and the house that eventually would be built on the three acre lot will be close to the road,
adding to the nature of the character of the neighborhood. However, there are a couple of
problems with even the conditions that Mr. Stone is recommending. That property as I
understand it, the three plus acres, is 19 Chestnut Ridge Road, and the application that we’re
listening to right now is 21 Chestnut Ridge Road. So I think, in the future, this could become
an enforcement nightmare simply because, unless it’s registered, the conditions are registered
on both properties, it’s not going to be registered in the deed, and if Mr. Granger sells the
property, you know, how is anybody going to know that there are conditions that exist on a
piece of property that the application is not for? Do you follow what I’m saying?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-So I think that creates an enforcement nightmare. The second problem that
I see with the application is the amount of relief, and the relief, as Mr. Stone pointed out, is
100%, and I’ve got to agree with Mr. Garrand that there has got to be some kind of feasible
alternative. So right now I’m falling down on the negative side.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess partly to take statements made earlier that we don’t get into
neighborhood disputes, likewise we don’t get into what a realtor said or didn’t say and
whether a lawyer did his job or not. It’s unfortunate that things came out that way, but
that’s beyond our jurisdiction. I think what I’m hearing from most of the public that’s
spoken is what their preference really would be is to let things stay the way they are and
never have another house built on that lot. Unfortunately, that’s probably not reality. So
then the question becomes, do we allow two residences on one lot, and therefore have an
additional house built on the essentially vacant lot up near the road, or do we say no to the
lot line change, in which case the applicant may well carve out a one acre area around the
cabin and put a house further back on that lot, which also can be a detriment to the
neighborhood. So it leaves kind of a quandary. I guess where I’m coming down is I think
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
creating a lot that has two separate residences on one lot maybe does change the character of
the neighborhood. Admittedly there’s a number of houses on Chestnut Ridge Road that have
a main house and another fairly large structure, but most of the other fairly large structures
are garages or barns, not living quarters. So I think this is a little different, even though this
is a smaller structure than some of the other ones on other lots. It’s still a second living
quarters that is separate from the main house. Given that it’s the devil if you do and the
devil if you don’t, as far as the neighborhood’s concerned on which way we go with this, I’m
inclined to go with the idea that we should grant the least relief possible and consider whether
there’s alternatives and there is an alternative. The applicant can carve out a one acre lot
around the cabin and still be able to use the bulk of his spare lot for another use. So I’m going
to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I’m rather conflicted, too. I find we have to be sort of Solomon
here, but I do, I have to agree with Mr. McNulty that I do think there must be another way
of handling this without putting two separate homes on one acre lot. So I would be against
the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think specifically in regards to this request here this evening, what
we’re looking at is somebody wanting to have two living dwellings on one lot, which I think
would be out of character with the neighborhood up there as it currently exists. I think that
it’s sort of like reading a book and reading the first page of a book and trying to interpret
what’s going to happen in the book later on, but obviously if we make this lot line
adjustment, that whole parcel is subject to sale to the highest bidder for whatever reason they
want, and another house could be built, probably on Chestnut Ridge, which would be out of
character because I think it would be cramming another one in there where currently, even
though it is a small cottage, if the cottage were removed, you could build a substantial home
on that property and it would fit with the rest of Chestnut Ridge, you know, with the
separation between the different houses that have been built and the new ones included with
the older ones that pre-existed up there. I think that the neighborhood character is
something that we should be concerned with, and I think the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
specifically points out the fact that these should be larger lots. I don’t really see this as a
hardship, because the property was purchased. It is two separate parcels. No one would
purchase a property without knowing that, that it was a single parcel, as was prescribed by
the applicant here this evening, but I think that we need to be careful with this and I would
not be in favor of this as it currently is proposed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. May I please go back to Mr. Stone,
please.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I appreciate the point that Mr. Underwood just made, particularly
about what could be on that lot behind there, and Mr. Bryant also said, can we even
condition that lot, although we certainly could condition the new lot as to being one lot only,
and the only way you’d get another house on that whole lot would be, one, tear it down and
build the house in a correct location, but I think the points that I have heard would make me
say I think we should get back to the applicant and come up with a better proposal.
Therefore, I would end up voting no.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, and may I go back to Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-At this point, I’d have to agree with the other Board members. There quite
possibly are other feasible alternatives to the appellant’s application, and at this point I’d
have to lean towards no.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m afraid I will also have to agree with the majority of
the Board members. I’m concerned about the character of the neighborhood. I’m concerned
about density. I’m concerned about granting 100% relief. I’m also concerned, and I’d have
to check with Counsel on the legality of having two separate lots, because as I believe Mr.
Bryant spelled out, it could be a nightmare, but I’m not sure, but I will check with legal.
Now, would you mind, Mr. Granger and Mrs. Granger, coming back to the table, please.
Now, you’ve heard what was said this evening, and I’m going to provide you with the same
courtesy that I provided the applicant, I believe, who proceeded you. You heard the
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
comments of our Board, and I will offer you the same as I offered the other focus. Three
options. You may request to table, and I will honor your request for a table. You certainly
may withdraw your appeal, or, you folks can say, well, I really want you to hear it this
evening, and we will.
MR. GRANGER-I didn’t understand the third option.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll start from the beginning again. I’m going to offer you three options.
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-One option is that you can table your appeal, and I will honor that. In other
words, what that means is this. You heard what the Board members have said this evening,
and you certainly should request a copy of the minutes of the meeting so there’s no
misinterpretation. Now, by tabling your appeal, this is giving you an opportunity to think
over what was said and an opportunity to come back to us, addressing the concerns of not
only the Board members but the public as well. You do follow me with that?
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Number Two, you can withdraw the appeal and say all right, forget it,
I’m going home. Okay. Number Three, you can say, well, I really want you to hear my case
this evening, in spite of the fact it appears that I may not have sufficient votes on the Board
to approve this, we will do that, but remember, no matter what I have said to you, any
suggestions that I made to you this evening, you can totally reject what I had to say without
prejudice.
MR. GRANGER-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-So now I’m asking you for a decision. What would you like to do?
MR. GRANGER-I’d like to table this.
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may, and I will honor that. Now, here’s what I would like you
to do, and please listen carefully. I would like you to, I’m going to honor your request to
table, and before you come back to us again, what I want you to do is this. Take all of your
revisions that you intend to submit to us, submitted to the Community Development
Department no later than the 15 of April. You got me? The 15 of April.
thth
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Now, how can you do that? By requesting from Staff a copy of the minutes
of the meeting. In the copy of the minutes of the meeting, you will then be able to read what
all your neighbors had to say. You will then be able to read everything that we would have
to say. You would then be able to read everything that you had to say. Now, you submit
your revisions to Staff no later than the 15 of April, and I will make every effort to get you
th
on the agenda, hopefully May 24. I’ll make every effort to do that.
th
MR. GRANGER-All right.
MR. ABBATE-Would you mind doing that?
MR. GRANGER-No, not at all.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, before I make a motion, you understand what I have said to you
this evening?
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Fine.
MR. GRANGER-Table leaves is open, right?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, tabling leaves everything open. The tabling leaves the public hearing
open, and tabling gives you a second opportunity to come back to us with some new ideas.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
Ideas that you feel that would be reasonable and acceptable to all the parties concerned.
Okay?
MR. GRANGER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, would you just remind the public that they will be notified.
Would we notify them again?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes, I’ll re-advertise and send notices out.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and by all means, folks, those of you in the public will be notified on the
hearing. No matter what date we schedule it for, you folks living like, what is it like within
500 feet?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You folks living within 500 feet, there’s an obligation that you be
notified in writing.
MRS. STOKES-Bernetta Stokes, 11 Chestnut Ridge. I would just like to say, I did not get an
official notice in the mail. I wouldn’t have even known about this hearing if it hadn’t been
for the neighbors telling me.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Here’s what I’m going to suspect, okay, and I will check it out for you
tomorrow, I promise. I suspect that you live beyond the 500 feet.
MRS. STOKES-From the lot line?
MR. STONE-From the other lot line.
MS. HEMINGWAY-Can you check the file, Mr. Underwood. Have him check the file. It’s
right in there.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Hang on for a second, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re on the list.
MRS. STOKES-Well, I didn’t get a notice.
MR. ABBATE-Are you at 11 Chestnut Ridge Road, ma’am?
MRS. STOKES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-It was sent out to you.
MS. HEMINGWAY-It did go out.
MRS. STOKES-I didn’t get it.
MR. STONE-Were you in Florida or anything like that?
MRS. STOKES-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it was sent to you and it was not returned to the Town. So there
is validity to the fact that there was a letter sent to you.
MRS. STOKES-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll make sure, tomorrow morning, if it comes back,
and you show up the next time, I will issue my sincere apologies. I promise you, okay. That’s
the best I can do, and I’ll also make sure, Sue, that we ensure that this young lady just before
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
us is mailed a personal copy, would you please. Is that okay, ma’am? Okay. All right. Now,
let me go to my motion if I may.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2006 BRUCE E. GRANGER, Introduced by
Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
21 Chestnut Ridge Road. Tabled to a hearing on May 24, 2006.
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote to table Area Variance No. 19-2006 is seven, yes; zero, no. The
motion is carried. Area Variance No. 19-2006 is tabled for the 24 of May in the Year 2006.
th
Thank you so very much, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. GRANGER-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-And thank you, members of the public.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2006 SEQRA TYPE II MARTHA SCHMULBACH AGENT(S): J.
LAPPER, ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ.; J. MOONEY OWNER(S): MARTHA SCHMULBACH
ZONING WR-1A LOCATION 96 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION
OF A 609 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION ONTO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REF. SPR 31-90; AV 27-1990; BP 90-597, ADDITION; BP 90-359 FROST WALL
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 8, 2006 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT
SIZE 0.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-2-12 SECTION 179-4-030; 179-13-030
MARTIN AUFFREDOU, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2006, Martha Schmulbach, Meeting Date: March 29,
2006 “Project Location: 96 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 609 sq. ft. second-story addition to the existing 901 sq. ft. single-family dwelling.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests:
1.04-feet of front yard setback relief, where the minimum is 30-feet.
1.6-feet of side yard setback relief, where the minimum is 20-feet.
8.92-feet of rear yard setback relief, where the minimum is 20-feet.
Above relief, per §179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Additional relief from the continuation requirements, for expansion of a nonconforming
structure, per §179-13-010.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2006-013: Pending, 612 sq. ft. residential addition.
BP 2006-036: Issued 2/23/06, for replacement of the basement.
BP 90-597: Issued 9/17/90, for the 42 sq. ft. addition and the 128 sq. ft. deck.
BP 90-359: Issued 6/11/90, for installation of a frost wall.
SP 31-90: Approved 5/9/90, for the 42 sq. ft. addition and the 128 sq. ft. deck.
AV 27-1990: Approved 4/18/90, relief from the front and rear setbacks, for a 42 sq. ft. utility
room and a 128 sq. ft. on-ground deck on front of cottage.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
Staff comments:
This application for relief is for the 609 sq. ft. 2 floor addition. When comparing the
nd
submitted site plan and those from the 1990 approvals, it appears that since that time, a
porch and utility room have been converted into living space and the previously approved
deck is now porch. Additionally, no approvals can be found for the deck on the West side
(rear of the property) and brick walk. Additional rear yard setback relief is required for these,
but not requested at this time.
The porch should be included on the FAR worksheet.
Previous plans show a parking area of approximately 300 sq. ft. at the Southwest corner of
the site, which is not shown on the submitted drawing. This area should be included on the
site plan as well as included on the site development data page.
Details on the existing septic system should be provided and also located on the site plan. It
appears that some alterations may have been done to the system in 1990, possibly a new tile
field. The existing system is sized for 2 bedrooms and the proposed new construction will
result in 2 bedrooms, however, because of the proposed increase in floor area the existing
septic system should be reevaluated.
Site plan review is required for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA, however no
such application has been submitted.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
March 29, 2006 Project Name: Schmulbach, Martha Owner(s): Martha Schmulbach ID
Number: QBY-06-AV-20 County Project#: Mar06-38 Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 609 sq. ft. second
story addition onto the existing structure. Relief requested from the front yard setback
requirements. Site Location: 96 Seelye Road Tax Map Number(s): 227.17-2-12 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct a 609 sq. ft. second story addition onto
an existing structure. The addition is to be located 18.4 feet from the south property line and
11.08 ft. from the rear property line where 20 ft. is required for both setbacks. The
information submitted shows the existing structure and elevation drawing of the addition.
The applicant indicates the addition is to contain a bedroom and a full bath. This would
allow for the house to remain a two bedroom home with 2 and ½ baths. The plans also show
the property as a triangular piece. The application did not provide information on the septic
system. Staff recommends no county impact with the condition the septic system is brought
into compliance. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with
Stipulation The Warren County Planning Board recommends No County Impact with the
condition the septic system is brought into compliance.” Signed by Richard C. Merrill,
3/10/06.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 20-2006 please come to the
table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of
residence.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Good evening Mr. Chairman, members. My name is Martin Auffredou.
I’m an attorney with the Bartlett, Pontiff law firm in Glens Falls. Jonathan Lapper could
not be here this evening. Stephanie DiLallo Bitter could not be here this evening, ad I guess I
drew the low straw, perhaps, but in any event, I’m here. I hope that doesn’t present a
problem. I know that the authorization form indicates that Jonathan and Stephanie are the
agents. I just want to get that out on the record.
MR. ABBATE-Right. Well, hang on for a second. That’s my question to Staff. Staff? We
do need an authorization form. Now he represents, the authorization form was signed by the
corporation, the law firm, was it not?
MS. HEMINGWAY-Mr. Mooney is listed as the agent, too.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Mr. Mooney is an authorized agent, and he’s listed on there, but
Jonathan asked me to be here. I hope that’s okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fine.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MRS. BARDEN-I think that’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-Proceed.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Okay. Fine. As you can imagine, I’m fairly new to this application. I
do not know the applicant, Mrs. Schmulbach, but I’m told that she lives alone at this
location. I’m told that she’s elderly, she’s 85 years old. She could not be here tonight, and
it’s my understanding that what she wants to try to accomplish here is to simply go up. This
is obviously a very small lot, .18 acres. There are other small lots nearby, from what I can see
of the tax map that I looked at. This is a pre-existing, non-conforming situation. The
setbacks that we are requesting relief from already are the setbacks. So if she were to do
anything on this property vertically, she’s going up, she would need the variances that are
requested because it’s a nonconforming structure. Now, it’s some 901 square feet on the first
floor, which is the only floor, at this point in time. What she has in mind is going up on the
second floor by approximately 609 feet. She would have a bedroom up there. She would have
a full bath up there, as I understand it. She would convert one of the two bedrooms that are
currently on the first floor to a study, or library or office space, and she would have an
additional half bath downstairs. My understanding is the reason why she wants to do this is
so that she can have guests, relatives, children, grandchildren stay with her and have room on
the second floor to do so. I don’t think she intends to use the second floor. I think this is
strictly for her guests, her accommodations, her guest accommodations and her relatives, as I
understand it. We do need to go to site plan because of the location to Lake George. We’re in
a Critical Environmental Area. That’s fine. Jonathan will have to do that, but I think, for
me, that gets to the issue of the septic. Staff raised a question as to whether or not septic is
adequate. My understanding from a review of the file is that in 1990 a permit was issued to
upgrade the septic system, 1,000 gallon tank was installed and 133 lineal feet of lateral tile
was put in, or thereabouts. Mr. Mooney’s probably more familiar with that than I am, but
we’re not adding bedrooms. We are adding a half bath, but we’re not adding bedrooms.
There’s no evidence that the septic system has failed. So I don’t think that that should be a
major concern for the Board. I do think that that is something that Planning Board could
take up on site plan review. There are some things that have gone on on the property. The
deck was referenced by Staff, and I think Stephanie had some conversations with Staff about
some of the issues that Staff raised. Staff is much better prepared to address those issues than
I am. I can address them somewhat, but I really don’t know all the facts and details about
the deck, and I do know about, the parking lot area, you had raised that as well. My
understanding is that that’s no longer there, and that’s why it wasn’t reflected on the survey.
That’s my understanding, but again, I’m going to defer to Staff on that, because I think Staff
had some conversations with Stephanie about those issues that Staff raised.
MR. ABBATE-You are with the firm of Mr. Lapper’s firm?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t think you ever appeared before us before.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I’ve been here once or twice before. I’m usually representing other
towns and villages. So that’s why I’m never here.
MR. ABBATE-All right, because I want to make sure I give you proper introduction to our
Board tonight, since you indicated you were unprepared, but continue. Go ahead.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I don’t think I said I’m unprepared.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-It may come across that way, but I don’t think I said that. At this
point, I’m going to defer to Mr. Mooney who’s the project contractor and who would be doing
the work on site.
JAMES MOONEY
MR. MOONEY-My name is James Mooney. I live I Cleverdale, New York. I believe most of
these Staff comments have been addressed. Is that right, Susan, with Stephanie?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MRS. BARDEN-I think that, yes, I did talk to Stephanie about the plan that you have in
front of you, and if you did site visits, I think you will see that the deck and the brick walk
are not there, and that was one of my comments. I didn’t see a parking area either. I’m not
sure where vehicles are parked on this lot, but I didn’t see that when I went on a site visit. So
I think that the numbers that have been submitted for the Floor Area Ratio worksheet that
just include the house, first floor, second floor and shed, seem to be accurate.
MR. STONE-One could argue, Mr. Chairman, that when I went by today, the house wasn’t
there. I mean, it’s off the foundation. It’s been moved. I have no idea where the house is
right now.
MRS. BARDEN-They did have a building permit issued just in January of this year to
replace the basement. So I believe what you saw was reflected in these photos is the
excavating.
MR. STONE-I understand what’s reflected there, Susan.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. STONE-But the point is these particular dimensions, I have no idea where the house is.
MR. ABBATE-And let me just continue on that just for one minute. Excuse me for a second,
will you please. I’m starting to become quite concerned. It seems to me we are not being
provided appropriate documentation that this Board should be provided in order to make an
intelligent decision. Now this is another case where Mr. Stone says, I went there, there’s no
home there. Well, why would he make such a statement? Did he make such a statement
because he doesn’t have any documentation to indicate that there is a home there? Am I
correct?
MR. STONE-Well, the home is, I’m being a little facetious.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, and I’m being a little facetious, too. Okay.
MR. STONE-It certainly was moved not where these dimensions would have it.
MR. ABBATE-Correct. All right, continue folks, please. We’re just venting a little
frustration here.
MR. MOONEY-There was a permit issued on 2/23 for replacement of the basement. In order
to replace the basement, we’re moving the house temporarily, for one day, and putting it
back.
MR. STONE-Just my luck to go by today.
MR. MOONEY-And that picture right there is where the house existed before it was moved,
and it’s on your survey map. Okay.
MR. STONE-Okay. I understand.
MR. MOONEY-Okay. It’s a temporary thing. The permit was issued, and the dimensions
are on the survey map, which was taken by a professional surveyor. So there is an existing
home on a survey map.
MR. STONE-I realize that. As I say, when it’s not there, though, it’s very hard to prepare.
MR. MOONEY-It didn’t disappear. It’s there.
MR. STONE-No, but it moved east apparently toward Seelye Road.
MR. MOONEY-Right.
MR. STONE-So a lot of these numbers, looking at the house, don’t help me, but that’s, as I
say, I think Mr. Chairman was right. That’s a little frustration from seeing these things. I
mean, certainly Mrs. Barden has said that a lot of these things, a lot of the questions that
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
were raised, have been addressed. When I looked at these things, I did not know that, and
therefore I wasn’t sure where anything was, when I went by today.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. Well, you know, I wasn’t either, and the map that they submitted,
I’m not sure if this was, if this is an older map and some things have since disappeared, the
deck and the brick walk, but, I mean, they’re on the submitted information that came to
Staff and came to the Board for you to review. It doesn’t appear that those are on site.
MR. ABBATE-Well, this map is dated 1987. It’s certainly not current.
MRS. BARDEN-Mine is dated February 9, 2006.
MR. STONE-February 9, 2006, I’ve got.
MR. ABBATE-2006. Okay. This is 1987. This is 2006. Okay. All right. Continue, please.
MR. MOONEY-To voice the concerns about the deck that was on the map and it’s not there
anymore, it’s been removed. Okay. There’s nothing that’s on the FAR, that’s all that’s there
anymore. The deck that she’s saying, the southwest corner deck, that’s been removed. It’s
not being replaced. Okay. The other deck that’s on the front of that house was approved in
1990. It’s 128 foot front deck, on ground deck. Okay, which is referred to as a porch on the
survey map. Van Dusen and Steves put that. They shouldn’t have put porch there. It was a
wooden deck.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, it’s referred to as a 128 square foot deck.
MR. MOONEY-No, I mean on the survey map.
MR. ABBATE-On the survey map.
MRS. BARDEN-As a porch.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-On the survey map it’s referred to as a porch. I think Staff refers to it as
a deck.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, that’s what I’m saying. In Staff notes it was referred to as a 128 square
foot deck.
MR. MOONEY-Right. So, I guess that’s where we’re at.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MOONEY-Mrs. Schmulbach has sold her residence in Clifton Park and is planning on
moving up here, to make this her primary residence, and she lives by herself. She’s in the
hospital right now with heart surgery, but she just wanted a little more space for people to
visit.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me ask you this question. Staff states this, and it was read into
the record. This application for relief is for a 609 square foot second floor addition. When
comparing the submitted site plan and those from the 1990 approvals, it appears that since
that time, a porch and utility room have been converted into living space, and a previously
approved deck is now a porch. Is that an accurate statement?
MR. MOONEY-I think, Susan, do you understand what that meant now? I mean, that’s it.
It hasn’t changed since 1990, and nothing’s been added on to the house.
MRS. BARDEN-Right. I think that the point was the applicants were granted approvals for
a porch and for an unfinished utility room, which is now part of interior living space.
MR. BRYANT-Take that one step further, please, because there’s an enclosed porch. Is that
what it is, it’s an enclosed porch?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. MOONEY-It was an approval for a 42 square foot addition in 1990, and 128 foot deck,
okay, and I can show you what that is, if you want me to show you. I did not do this. The
builder at that time, as a matter of fact, it was one of the Staff members at the Town of
Queensbury who did it, and there was a 42, this house had a little jig in it, where this window
is, and that was filled in and made square, 42 feet, and the utility was downstairs in the
basement. This always existed. It was a screened porch, and they enclosed it into a wall.
Okay. The deck they’re talking about on the porch, on that survey, was a wooden deck right
here which has been removed temporarily, so we moved the house, and it’s just a wooden
deck laying on the ground.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. My question basically is, that porch that, in the back that’s enclosed.
MR. MOONEY-This here?
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. STONE-Is that the back or the front?
MR. MOONEY-That’s the front. It depends on how you look at it.
MR. STONE-Well, no, I know it’s a lake property, but that’s close to Seelye?
MR. MOONEY-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-On the worksheet it’s not separate, and is that all included in the 900 square
feet?
MR. MOONEY-Yes. This all included in the 900 square feet. Does that answer your
question?
MR. BRYANT-Kind of.
MR. STONE-I have a question along those same lines. The survey that we had, had this deck
right up against the shed, and right up against the house. Does that make the shed part of
the house? It’s not a detached shed.
MR. MOONEY-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-Well, there’s a deck, according to this thing there’s a deck on one side and
connected to the house on the other.
MR. MOONEY-That deck has been removed during this construction.
MR. STONE-That was one of my questions.
MRS. BARDEN-That deck is gone. No, if you see this picture, it doesn’t look like the shed
and the house are connected. You’re right, they could have been connected by a deck at some
point, but that deck is not there.
MR. STONE-So that back deck in the left side of the house is no longer there?
MR. MOONEY-Right.
MR. STONE-So what you have is an oversized shed on the property.
MR. MOONEY-And we had to include it in the FAR because it’s over 100 square feet.
MR. STONE-Right. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Now are we talking about the deck on the west side, in the rear of the
property?
MR. MOONEY-Correct.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So that’s no longer there?
MR. MOONEY-Right.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, well that’s good because there were no approvals for it in the first
place.
MR. MOONEY-If you went up there, you probably would have seen it torn off anyway
today.
MR. ABBATE-All right? Anything else? Okay. Anytime, again, as I said to everyone else,
any time you feel that there is information you feel will help your appeal, let us know. We’ll
let you enter it into the record.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I believe the secretary for the Board read the standards for the variance.
I really don’t have anything to add. I think it would just be redundant, but we do clearly feel
that the benefit is clear here, and the detriment to the character is not substantial.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. STONE-I have a question, and it’s more for an erudition standpoint. Mr. Auffredou,
you are the Counsel to the Lake George Park Commission.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Yes, I am.
MR. STONE-Does this impact in any way, is there any conflict?
MR. AUFFREDOU-No, because I don’t think the Lake George Park Commission has any
jurisdiction over this project.
MR. STONE-Okay, but it is in the Park.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Right, but I do work in the Lake George Park all the time.
MR. STONE-I thought you did, but I just wanted to get it out there, that’s all.
MR. AUFFREDOU-Well, I appreciate it, Lew, but I don’t see how. There isn’t a dock.
There isn’t a marina.
MR. STONE-I think there’s a gentleman who’s going to argue that back there, but we’ll get
to that, but I hear you. You’ve answered my question, and we can move on as far as I’m
concerned.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do you have any questions for 20-
2006? Okay. Let me move on, then. What I’m going to do, I’m going to open up the public
hearing for Area Variance No. 20-2006, and if we have any folks in the audience who would
like to be heard, would you mind raising your hands, please, and I will recognize you. Yes,
sir, you are first. Would you please be kind enough to come to the table, speak into the
microphone, tell us who you are, where you reside, and then proceed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SHANAHAN
MR. SHANAHAN-I have a whole litany here. I’ve got to race to get this through in five
minutes. I have a letter here, I have two copies I would like the Board to have. I would like
to hand you some pictures, and just run down a little bit of the history of what has happened
on Seelye Road in the past year.
MR. STONE-Did he identify himself?
MR. SHANAHAN-I’m sorry. I’m John Shanahan. It used to be 18 Seelye Road. Now we
call it 11 Holiday Pointe Road. I live right next to Todd Mahoney who is in Key West
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
tonight on a sailboat. I have some photos here that were taken today, in case you’d like to
know where the house was.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, please.
MR. SHANAHAN-Pass them down. The house is on rollers. It’s being moved. They’re
going to bring it right out to the road. I’ve never met Mr. Mooney. I didn’t come here
tonight to make enemies, but I don’t expect to leave very popular, either. We have had a
problem, and I didn’t know it was Mr. Mooney until just recently, with Mr. Mooney and his
construction methods for over a year now. Chris Navitsky, the Lake George Water Keeper,
one day, you’ll see in those pictures paint running right into our lake. I called Chris Navitsky,
because we had a major pollution problem, and he told me to call the Park Commission. I
have e-mails here, a full history of everybody that’s been involved in this, starting back a
year ago, when Mr. Mooney built a house for, let’s see, who was the first fellow he worked on.
It wasn’t Mr. Schneider. He built one for a fellow by the name of Robert Marra. They raised
the elevation of that terrain about four feet, and during the good rain, well, even prior to the
rain, I caught him washing latex paint into the bay. Turned it all white. You’ll see it in
those photos there. I was in the cellar re-doing a piece of furniture, so I wasn’t aware of it at
the time, but when I came up, I just happened to take a look to the left, at Todd Mahoney’s
property, and his bay was all white, and I walked over to see where it was coming from, and I
saw men working on a house, and I saw like a two gallon paint roller tray with a roller in it, a
sump pump from the cellar going into the tray running out on the ground into a drain, and so
I called Mr. Navitsky. Chris came over within 45 minutes and saw it, photographed it, and
then we called the Lake George Park Commission, which is really quite useless. Sad to say.
Today I spoke to a Michael P. White and he said they really have no authorization up here
for enforcement of any kind. They say it’s your job, the Town. I was not aware of that.
There’s so many commissions around here, it’s hard to tell who’s who, because I’ve got a
stack of e-mails going from Craig Brown to Bruce Frank to Roger Smith, Officer Germaine,
your enforcement officer who’s really not an enforcement officer here at all, they tell me, and
everybody passes it to someone else, even to the road department. Paint was only the
beginning. We had a heavy rain thereafter and it silted. I had just had my driveway sealed,
and it looked real nice and clean, and after the heavy rain, we were washing silt off it onto the
lawn, but the silt came down across Seelye Road, through Mahoney’s property, and turned
the bay brown. Now his beach is now currently ruined. Anybody like to come to breakfast
tomorrow is welcome at my house. We make a great cup of tea. That water filter, which I’d
love to toss to you, it would probably break your arm, just came out today. This is for three
days with my son, his wife and two small children. Three days use. They came up for
President’s Day weekend, when the power went out. They didn’t stay long. They were only
here two days, and I stayed a few more. This is what the filters look like when you cut them
in half, and Chris Navitsky acknowledges our bay is basically ruined. When you break them
in half and dry them out, they’re just full of sand. That filter is supposed to last three or four
months. I use one a week, and even then, nobody will drink our water. Our water being
picked up in the lake, about 125, 130 feet out. They had a fireman’s drill last summer. At
five o’clock in the afternoon they threw a dummy in the water, went to rescue it, and they
aborted the attempt because they couldn’t see. You cannot see in our bay any longer. To see
a lady with a heart condition. I’ve had my four way by-pass. I’ve got five stents, I wouldn’t
think of putting a second story on. I live on a little ranch across the road, and I like this lake.
I mean, last year I loaned her four books, because she’s not a democrat and she liked the
books I had, and the case against Hillary she loved.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, I hate to cut you off at that, at the word democrat, but
unfortunately your five minutes are up. Now, if you have any further documents you’d like
to submit into the record, we would be happy to accept to accept them.
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes, I do.
MR. ABBATE-Would you present them to our secretary, please.
MR. SHANAHAN-Can I make a couple of other factual statements?
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. SHANAHAN-On this second floor, she’s adding over 800 feet to the cellar. This house is
already, this project is underway. This house has been moved today. It’s not where you
thought it was. You’re right on the mark. If you look at the cellar for the Floor Area Ratio,
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
which is a thought, because all my neighbors, I won’t say all, but I have one right next door.
I have one on either side of me, finished both cellars and some have sleeping accommodations
for three sets of double bunks. That’s six more people on the cellar grade. She’s got 800
square feet down there. She’s got plenty of room to do that. That brings her up to a total of
2310 square feet, on .18 acres. She did screen in the, build in the whole front. That was
screened.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, I’ve extended as much time as I possibly can to you.
MR. SHANAHAN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-If you would like to submit any documents, we will be happy to accept them.
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes. I would like to submit all of them.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, may I just add a caveat? This is an A-political Board.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-We don’t mention party nomenclature.
MR. BRYANT-Just out of curiosity, Mr. Chairman, getting back to the issue. Did you notify
the DEC about any of these environmental issues? I mean, you know, they’re the first people
really you should.
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes, I have. I’ve notified everybody up here I can reach, and everybody
tells me, it’s his job.
MR. BRYANT-The Town?
MR. SHANAHAN-Yes, the Town, too. A Town man was looking at the site a year ago. He
said we’ll clean it up and take care of it right away, Mr. Shanahan. It’ll be done this year. He
never came back.
MR. BRYANT-My understanding is the DEC would supersede anything that the Town has
got to say.
MR. SHANAHAN-They even said they had money to do the job, but it never got done.
MR. ABBATE-I can’t extend anymore time to you, I’m sorry.
MR. SHANAHAN-Okay. Can I give you copies of these?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, we’ll accept whatever you wish us to accept, and for Mr. Stone’s sake,
the reason I cut him off is because it was the individual who mentioned the democratic party.
I did not want it to continue. Do we have anyone else in the audience who would like to
address Area Variance No. 20-2006? Yes, ma’am, please come forward. Have a chair, speak
into the microphone.
KATHY STANDBRIDGE
MRS. STANDBRIDGE -I’m Kathy Standbridge. I own the cottage right next to Marty
Schmulbach. The red cottage that you see referenced up there is mine, 92 Seelye Road. I
have some just points of concern, okay, that I want to bring up, because she is that close to
me already, okay. Number One is the septic system and what might happen there. I don’t
see any really reference as to what changes may happen, and that’s one of my concerns
because I’m so close. My water system, everything of mine is right there. Okay. Number
Two is you’re talking about a setback on the side. Which side? Is it closest to me? Because
there’s actually no room now. There is no room between her place and my place, unless they
have moved it today, which I haven’t been up there. Okay. Number Three is if they’re going
up, how is that going to restrict my view at all, you know, from where I am, if I went up in
my house, you know, what is the view going to be like from my standpoint. Again, you can
see how close we are. I’m in that red house right there. So if she goes up, what does that do
to my view of the little bay? Okay. I would say also worried about the Critical
Environmental portion of that septic system. Let me add that as well. We already have,
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
with what they’re telling me now, that piece of decking in the back has been taken down with
the utility or whatever. That was so close to my house, they had company this year. Now
when Marty lived there by herself, she very seldom used that deck, but she had company last
summer. People sat on that deck. If I got sick in my bathroom, those people could hear. I
could hear every word that they said. They are literally on top of me already, okay. So with
that, again, I don’t mean to make any enemies or anything, because they’re my neighbors
and things, but I would be opposed to any growth on that very small piece of property, at all,
and the last I looked at these maps here, I was here last year looking at the site maps, it
looked to me, and maybe I was looking at an old one, but it looked to me like already their
line, the line between my house and their house, already goes through the front deck, what
used to be their porch right here, in the front. It looked like the survey lines were already into
my property. They’ve already built into my property, from what I could tell. I don’t know
what year I was looking at. It could have been that ’87 one. Short and sweet.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much. Your comments are noted.
MRS. STANDBRIDGE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other folks in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 20-2006? Do I have any hands?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have one piece of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-No one else? Okay. We have some correspondence. Now, before we do the
correspondence, Counselor, and the architect or contractor, would you like to respond to some
of the comments that were made, please?
MR. MOONEY-I’d first like to address the gentleman behind me who told me I was doing all
this stuff to his lake. I didn’t build Mr. Marra’s house. So that takes care of that. Somebody
else did. That’s the house he was referring to, all right. As far as the height of the house, it
doesn’t even face the lake. The addition, the second story addition is going to be back here.
It’s not even, it’s only a half a story, in other words. It’s going to start here and go back here.
This is going to, you can see almost where the roof is caving in right here. Can you see that in
the picture or no? This is all caving in, and that’s why we’re going to put the, this is going to
be replaced whether we put the second story on or not, since it’s caving in. That’s where it’s
going. So her view would not be obstructed at all. This house faces northeast, okay. The
lake is at this angle, at the corner that way. Do you follow that at all? Okay. It’s on the
survey map, too, the second story.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, did you want to say something?
MR. MOONEY-And also I think I did say the building height with the addition is only 22
feet. We’re allowed 28.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-I’ll be brief. It gets back to something that Lew asked me earlier about
the Lake George Park Commission, and, Lew, I’ve certainly had no involvement with this,
that I’m aware of.
MR. STONE-I just wanted it on the record.
MR. AUFFREDOU-But the gentleman stated, how the process works is that the Commission
maintains a pollution hotline, and calls go into that pollution hotline, and at that point in
time the Commission staff makes the determination as to who to send the information to, or
to who to refer you to, but the Commission takes no action with respect to an alleged
violation. An alleged violation is handled by a municipal entity, DEC, APA, DOH, but not
the Commission.
MR. STONE-Okay. So Roger Smith or Tom Wardell?
MR. AUFFREDOU-Roger Smith, Tom Wardell or Mike White would take the information
and refer you to somebody else.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. AUFFREDOU-On the septic, again, I just want to reiterate for the record, there’s no
evidence of any nonconformity or of any noncompliance. The septic system is apparently
working fine. It was replaced, as I understand it, in 1990, through a permit process, and I
think, in my view, again, as I stated earlier, that can be looked at during site plan review. It
is what it is. We’re not expanding the number of bedrooms. Therefore, as I understand the
law, the septic system does not need to be expanded in size, as a result of this project, and I
guess I would just reiterate, on the view shed, based upon what Jim has said, there doesn’t
appear to be any impact to the neighbor’s view whatsoever. We are not expanding the
footprint of this property. We are simply going vertically up. We are not creating any new
setbacks. The setbacks that we are dealing with are the existing setbacks, which are
nonconforming setbacks, no matter what we do with this house. If we want to go vertically
up, we are faced with a setback issue, and that’s the need for the variance, folks.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thanks so very much.
MR. STONE-Question on this thing. Would there be an as built survey? Assuming we
granted this relief, would there be an as built survey? Because I know you’re putting in a
foundation, putting in a basement. We know that, sometimes, we heard one earlier tonight,
house moved a foot one direction or the other. That’s a concern, that’s all. I don’t have an
answer.
MR. ABBATE-Well, this is going to be referred to the Planning Board for a site plan review
anyway because it’s nonconforming.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. AUFFREDOU-And it’s in a CEA.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s in a CEA.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, of course. All right.
MR. AUFFREDOU-And we thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You folks stay right there. Don’t go away yet. I’m going to continue on and
I’m going to ask members for their comments.
MR. STONE-You’ve got Jim’s letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you want me to read this letter.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Go ahead, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is an e-mail received on March 29, and it was from Mr. Ian
th
Rowlandson. “I live behind Martha Schmulbach on Seelye Road; we use the same access
road to our respective homes. I support the proposed construction to add a second story.
Although my home is behind the Schmulbach residence, it does not impact my view of the
lake, etc. Furthermore, the Schmulbach residence does not impact the view of any other
Lake George property owner. I have known Martha Schmulbach since she has owned the
property. She is a responsible, cooperative neighbor. Please grant this variance. I would also
like to add that most of the variances requested in this neighborhood have resulted in
objections, which result in subsequent retaliatory objections when the next property requests
a variance. The behavior has become petty, as the objections often no longer directly pertain
to the property of the objecting owner or the general environment. These objections often do
not make sense but can result in major delays and additional expenses that have no benefit to
the environment, the real-estate or the community of the Town of Queensbury. Thank you
for this consideration. Ian Rowlandson Chief Engineer, Diagnostic Cardiology” That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, Mrs. Hunt, please.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MRS. HUNT-I just want to make clear that the setbacks that are requested of 1.0 feet for
front, 1.6 for side, and 8.92 rear setback relief is exactly what is there now.
MR. MOONEY-Correct.
MRS. HUNT-There is no change. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions before I continue? All right. I’m going to ask
Board members to offer their comments, and I’d like to inform the public that the comments
offered by members of the Board are directed to the Chairman, and comments expressed by
the Board members to the Chairman are not open to debate. Now I’m going to ask members
to please offer their comments on Area Variance No. 20-2006, and again, respectfully remind
them that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the
record to support our conclusions. And the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated.
This is necessary for an intelligent Judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take
must be based on the regulatory review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective
preferences or not liking a project, and due process guarantees that government ensures a fair
and open process, and Board members make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the
record of Board deliberations. In the event any of you wish a motion to include a condition,
please, please, clearly spell out the conditions so the member introducing the motion may
include your condition with clarity. Do I have a volunteer? All right. Let’s go to Mrs. Hunt,
please.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I would be in favor of this variance. It’s a very modest house, and
certainly it’s not an excessive addition. Even all together it would be 1500 square foot, which
is really nothing compared to some of the houses we deal with, and I don’t know that the
benefit could be achieved by any other feasible means, if the applicant wanted to increase the
size of her home. I don’t think there’ll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character or to nearby properties. I don’t think it’s a substantial request, as I said, because
this is a modest home to begin with. I don’t think it will have any adverse physical or
environmental effects. It’s just going to increase the height of the building, and again, that’s
within the allowable height, and it’s self-created only in the fact that Mrs. Schmulbach wishes
to enlarge her house.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree somewhat with what Mrs. Hunt has said.
It’s a modest house, but it’s also a modest lot. It’s less than two-tenths of an acre. So it’s a
very small lot. I do want to correct a misconception here. Counsel indicates that one of the
bedrooms is being converted to a study and therefore we’re not increasing the number of
bedrooms, but the reality is, if the house were sold, anybody could make a bedroom out of
that or anything else they wanted to. So you are increasing the number of bedrooms. That
being said, I think the project is good. You don’t extend beyond the existing setbacks. I am
dismayed about the environmental issues. That’s really a matter, in my view, for an agency
like DEC or ENCON or any of those, but that being said, I’d vote in favor also.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. I appreciate that. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I think, as has been said, the setbacks are relatively modest. The proposed
height increase is within current restrictions, and it’s not going to cover the entire footprint of
the house, only part of it. I’m never totally confident about these assurances that the height
increase isn’t going to block somebody’s view, but I am encouraged that it’s not the entire
house that’s being raised to the second story. I’m also not totally convinced that it won’t
have some effect on the character of the neighborhood. There’s several modest one story
camps in that particular area, but there are also some two story houses in that area. I think
this is going to make a little change to the character of the neighborhood, but probably not
real significant. So I’m kind of teetering on the edge, but I think I’m leaning in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I think Mr. McNulty has expressed it very well. There are
obviously concerns that we have expressed, none of which make this a no go project. I think
it’s a reasonable project. I’m glad that I went today. I don’t usually go on the last day, so
that I could see this house. At least we got it out, it’s on the record. We are assured that the
house will be put back exactly where these numbers that we’re granting say it will be, and
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
then the obligation is obviously on the applicant and her agents to be sure that that’s in fact
where it ends up. So, having said that, I think I can vote for it. I should tell you that
obstructing a view of a legal lot, with a legal height house, is really not on the agenda. I know
there are places where people have literally built in front of somebody, not in Queensbury,
but built a legally sized house that almost totally blocked their view of the lake. It can be
done as long as it’s within the zoning requirements, but I don’t think this is the case here. I
think this is a reasonable project and I would vote yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-I’d have to agree with Mr. Bryant’s assessment. I do think that listing a
study on the floor plan is just a euphemism for a bedroom. I think the relief requested is
pretty modest. Given the dimensions of this lot, I don’t think they could increase the size of
this house any other way. There’s almost nowhere they can go with it. I don’t think there’s
any undesirable change in the neighborhood or any other adverse environmental effects that I
can think of at this point. I do have concerns about the septic. Is the difficult self-created? I
don’t believe so. I think the lot pretty much limits what the homeowner can do, and I’d be in
favor of this project.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would essentially agree with what most of the people who are positive
about this request have said. The amount of relief is minimal. It’s not changing any of the
relief that isn’t already existing on the lot as it presently is. The septic issues, I think, will be
addressed during site plan review. If they want more laterals put in, there’s adequate room to
probably add one more lateral in there, and I think that the 1,000 gallon tank, even with
three bedrooms, would be adequate because that’s over built in capacity, even for that
amount. The size of the request for upstairs, the addition, you know, they could have asked
for double what they had there, and they haven’t done that either. So I think that’s within
the realm of reason, you know, it’s a reasonable request, and it seems to be the way the
neighborhood will probably progress with other homes up there, too. The issues that were
raised by some of the neighbors about environmental changes in the lake and things like that
are something that needs to be addressed, but, again, that’s something that you need to put
pressure on the Town to do. They were, and I do recall that they were going to put a catch
basin in there, and I don’t think that that’s been accomplished at this point in time. So, call
up your Ward rep. and find out why. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. I would agree with my fellow Board
members. I’m satisfied that taking all the comments that were made by our Board members,
they adequately addressed the five statutory requirements. I don’t have a problem with that.
So I’m going to move on, and I’m going to close the public hearing for Area Variance No.20-
2006.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the
fact that State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in
deciding whether to grant an area variance. Please introduce your motion with clarity. In
the event a member does not understand the motion as stated, please advise me and I will
request that the motion be repeated a second time. The motion itself is not subjected to
debate. Any member not favoring the motion may exercise the right to vote no or introduce
their own motion. Having said that, is there a motion for Area Variance No. 20-2006?
MRS. BARDEN-Can I just say something?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, by all means, Staff.
MRS. BARDEN-I think it was Mr. Auffredou that said that Mrs. Schmulbach won’t be using
the second floor. So, with that in mind, it appears that it would be a three bedroom structure.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Your comments are duly noted.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand that comment.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MRS. BARDEN-Well, if they’re adding two bedrooms on the second floor, Mrs. Schmulbach
is going to be, she’s 85 years old, remain on the first floor, that study is going to remain a
bedroom.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but as long as she’s alive and as long as she owns the building.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. BRYANT-But the variance is forever. So if she builds a second floor, and she’s gone
tomorrow, she moves to Mexico, that house, that could be converted to a bedroom.
MRS. BARDEN-Well, that’s true, too.
MR. BRYANT-I made that statement because I don’t want it misconstrued. I don’t want
everybody to get the idea that it’s great because they’re adding a structure but it doesn’t
increase the number of bedrooms. When it goes to the Planning Board, I want to be sure they
understand clear that that can be converted to a bedroom at any time.
MRS. BARDEN-Exactly, but you can only really look at what’s in front of you and how it’s
presented, but I think it’s been presented that this is two bedrooms upstairs, but that the
downstairs.
MRS. HUNT-One bedroom upstairs.
MR. STONE-It’s two and one.
MRS. BARDEN-Two and one.
MR. STONE-Two downstairs, one upstairs.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. STONE-I think that’s what she’s saying, Al.
MR. BRYANT-Well, there’s one, and a study.
MR. STONE-No, two downstairs and one upstairs. Three.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but there’s not going to be three. There’s only going to be two.
MR. MOONEY-Excuse me, can I say something?
MR. BRYANT-It really has nothing to do with the motion anyway. I won’t even talk about
it.
MRS. BARDEN-Okay.
MR. MOONEY-Can I say one thing, though?
MR. ABBATE-If you wish, go right ahead.
MR. MOONEY-The definition of a bedroom has to have a closet in it. It has no closet for one
thing.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We’re moving on.
MR. ABBATE-Counsel’s representing the client.
MR. MOONEY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Now, let me go back again, and repeat what I said. I’m looking for a motion.
Is there a motion for Area Variance No. 20-2006?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-Would you please, Mrs. Hunt, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2006 MARTHA SCHMULBACH,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
96 Seelye Road. The applicant proposes a 609 square foot second story addition to the
existing 901 square foot single family dwelling. Relief required. The applicant requests 1.4
and four hundredths feet of front yard setback relief where the minimum is 30 feet; 1.6 feet of
side yard setback relief where the minimum is 20 feet; and 8.92 feet of rear yard setback relief
where the minimum is 20 feet. Above relief is per Section 179-4-030 for the Waterfront
Residential One Acre zone. Additional relief from the continuation requirements for the
expansion of a nonconforming structure per Section 179-13-010. Whether the benefit could
be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Because of the size of the plot of land,
they really could not expand out. I don’t think there’ll be an undesirable change in the
neighborhood character or to nearby properties. The height is within the allowed limit. The
request is modest. The request will not have any adverse physical or environmental effects,
and the alleged difficulty is not self-created, in the sense that the lot size and situation of the
building prevents any outward expansion. So the expansion must be upward. So, I would
suggest we pass Area Variance No. 20-2006.
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
MR. BRYANT-I don’t understand the motion. I have a couple of questions.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, you have that right.
MR. BRYANT-There were a couple of things that were mentioned in the discussion here, one
of them relative to site plan review. I just want to make sure that it’s going to go to site plan
review.
MR. ABBATE-I can assure you, as Chairman, I’ll handle that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the other issue that was mentioned was the deck that was shown
on the survey. That’s not going to go up later on. I’m just concerned about all this other
stuff that’s shown on the survey.
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to introduce a condition to Mrs. Hunt for her consideration?
MR. BRYANT-No, I don’t want to disturb her motion. It’s such a nice motion, but I just
want to make sure it’s on the record that that deck by the shed is not going to re-introduced
later on.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counsel, I appreciate that.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 20-2006 is approved, and before you go, I want it
understood, and, Staff, please make a note of this, that this will go to the Planning Board for
a site plan review, and I would also like you to note to the Planning Board that it is the desire
of the Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals, that a copy of the minutes of this meeting
accompany that. Would you do that for me?
MRS. BARDEN-I will.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. AUFFREDOU-We thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 20-2006 is approved.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
USE VARIANCE NO. 21-2006 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED JABCO, INC. AGENT(S):
DANIEL J. HOGAN OWNER(S): JABCO, INC. ZONING CI-1A LOCATION: 7
BOULEVARD APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESTAURANT/BAR USE IN THE CI ZONE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMITTED USES IN THE CI ZONE. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: MARCH 8, 2006 LOT SIZE: 0.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.20-2-36
SECTION: 179-4-020
DANIEL HOGAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 21-2006, Jabco, Inc., Meeting Date: March 29, 2006
“Project Location: 7 Boulevard Description of Proposed Project: Applicant seeks to
establish a Bar and Restaurant at 7 Boulevard.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses of the Commercial
Industrial, (CI) zone, per §179-4-020.
Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1.
Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as
demonstrated by competent financial evidence?
While the applicant has responded to this question in their submittal, it does not appear as
though a “competent financial” dollars and cents response for each and every allowable use in
this district has been supplied. The following are some of the outstanding questions.
What is the monthly / annual mortgage dollar amount? If any.
What was the original purchase price? (per the tax stamp on the deed, it appears as though
the purchase price was $65,000… $260 .@..$4/$1000)
What are the actual “dollars and cents” amounts for conversion to an allowable use for
“…each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations…” for this particular district?
What would the appraisal of a completely renovated building at this location?
This standard is not “highest and best use.” The standard is “reasonable return.” It does not
appear that the lack of a reasonable return has been presented.
2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique, and does this hardship
apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood?
The hardship may not be considered unique as a similar use, a former restaurant, was recently
recycled into an allowable retail use. (Former Steakhouse restaurant, now an antique store)
3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the
neighborhood?
If granted, the subject property would not likely alter the character of the neighborhood.
4. Is the alleged hardship self-created:
The alleged hardship may not be entirely self created. As noted in the applicant’s submission,
in 2002 the zoning district was changed from Highway Commercial, where a restaurant was
an allowable use
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
The application offers a listing of previous tenants at the subject property along with the
appropriate Certificates of Occupancy.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
Staff comments:
It appears as though additional supporting information would be necessary to completely
address the required criteria. Specifically, additional “dollars and cents” numbers including
not only conversion numbers but operational costs and perhaps a potential valuation of such
a converted space.
SEQR Status:
Type: Unlisted”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
March 29, 2006 Project Name: Jabco, Inc. Owner(s): Jabco, Inc. ID Number: QBY-06-
UV-21 County Project#: Mar06-31 Zoning: CI-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes a restaurant/bar use in the CI zone. Relief requested from
permitted uses in the CI zone. Site Location: 11 Boulevard Tax Map Number(s): 303.20-2-
36 Staff Notes: Use Variance: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing building as a
restaurant/bar use in the CI zone. Relief requested from permitted uses in the CI zone. The
information submitted indicates the property can not be utilized as zoned as the zoning was
changed from Highway Commercial to Commercial Industrial. The applicant has indicated
the building has been used consistently in the past as a restaurant/bar use where periods of
non-use were due to owners illness. The applicant has attempted to sell the property as zoned
for the past few years with two different real estate agencies. The most recent offer is
contingent on the property being able to be used as a bar restaurant. Staff does not identify
an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no
county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed by Richard C. Merrill 3/10/06.
MR. HOGAN-Dan Hogan from McPhillips, Fitzgerald & Cullum, on behalf of the applicant,
Jabco, Inc., and I have also John Bowen as sole shareholder.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it might be important just to read in a little bit of the history,
because I think that will be pertinent to what we’re doing here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-“My name is John Bowen. I am the sole shareholder of a corporation
named JABCO, Inc. (hereinafter “JABCO”). JABCO owns real property located at 7
Boulevard, Queensbury, New York (the “Real Property”). On April 26, 1988, JABCO
acquired the Real Property by deed from Helen Marzola and Thomas M. Marzola. A true and
accurate copy of the deed is annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A. The
Warren County tax mapping department keeps cards with regard to all tax map parcels. The
Real Property was assigned to tax map parcel 303.20-2-36 (formerly 113.1-5.1).”
Essentially, the Marzolla’s conveyed their property to JABCO. Antonetta Caccavo’s son,
Joseph Caccavo, operated the Boulevard Diner at the Real Property. His use of the Real
Property as the Boulevard Diner dated back to the 1960’s. Joseph Caccavo operated the
Boulevard Diner until it was leased to Angelo Piscopelli. Mr. Piscapelli continued to operate
the Boulevard Diner until it was sold to Thomas J. Marzolla. The Marzolla’s changed the use
of the Real Property to a bar/restaurant, which they operated under the name of Muzzies.
The Real Property was used as a bar/restaurant by the Marzolla’s from 1979 until John
Bowen leased the Real Property (with the option to buy) in 1985. He operated the
bar/restaurant known as Nicky’s. When JABCO acquired the Real Property in 1988, he
continued to operate Nicky’s, until 1991 when he fractured his back. In 1991, he leased the
Real Property, the tenant operated it as a bar/restaurant known as Tuck’s Place. Tucks’
operated the bar/restaurant until 1996. A true and accurate copy of Tuck’s Certificate of
Occupancy is annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit C. In October 1997, an
entity operated the business for about 3 weeks known as Burger’s & Dogs. JABCO was
having issues with Burger’s and Dogs, and shut down that business in November 1997. A
true and accurate copy of Burger’s and Dogs’ Certificate of Occupancy is annexed hereto and
made a part hereof as Exhibit D. From November 1997 through the end of 1998, the
bar/restaurant ceased to operate. In November 1998, John Bowen applied for a septic
disposal permit from the Town of Queensbury. A true and accurate copy of the Septic
Disposal Permit is annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit E. William E.
Montgomery, Jr., P.E. drafted a plot plan for the replacement septic system. A true and
accurate copy of engineer Montgomery’s map of the replacement septic system is separately
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
attached hereto (because of its size), which map provides the plot plan for the subject use
variance application. The Town of Queensbury issued a Certificate of Compliance for the
septic alteration. A true and accurate copy of the Certificate of Compliance is annexed hereto
and made a part hereof as Exhibit F. In February 1999, JABCO, Inc. changed the name of
the bar/restaurant to Destinations. Destinations operated the business in 1999 and 2000. A
true and accurate copy of Destinations Certificate of Occupancy is annexed hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit G. JABCO did not operate the bar/restaurant in the beginning of
2001. In August 2001, JABCO changed the name to The Pub. The Pub continued the
bar/restaurant business from September 2001 until approximately September 2002. John
Bowen suffered a debilitating injury in September 2002, and he was no longer physically able
to operate the bar/restaurant. A true and accurate copy of The Pub’s Certificate of
Occupancy is annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit H. Effective April 9, 2002,
the Town of Queensbury re-zoned the Real Property from Highway Commercial to
Commercial Industrial. The permit uses for Commercial Industrial are as follows: (i)
assembly/operation/use; (ii) distribution center, (iii) light industry; (iv) office; (v) research and
development facility; (vi) self-storage facility; (vii) public or semi-public building; (viii) retail
business/use; (ix) school and (x) place of worship. Commercial Industrial does not permit a
bar/restaurant use, although it was a permissible use under the old Highway Commercial
classification. JABCO engaged Realty USA to list the Real Property. Sales Associate Dave
Strainer attempted to sell the Real Property from April 26, 2002 to July 25, 2003. A true and
accurate copy of Mr. Strainer’s February 10, 2006 correspondence, together with the Warren
County Commercial Data Entry Form is annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit I.
According to Mr. Strainer, all interest in the Real Property was for a bar/restaurant use. No
individual expressed an interest in acquiring the Real Property for any Commercial Industrial
use. On October 21, 2004, JABCO entered into another listing agreement with All-American
Properties.Com. A true and accurate copy of the Exclusive Right to Sell Agreement with All-
American Properties. Com is annexed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit J. Several
individuals approached JABCO to lease the Real Property as a bar/restaurant, but no bona
fide purchaser came forward until JABCO entered into a contract to sell with Edward Boller,
Kelly Boller, Lesley D’Angelo and Vincent D’Angelo. The contract purchase price is
$140,000.00 The purchasers’ imposed a condition on the purchase such that the Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals approve a use variance to operate a bar/restaurant at the Real
Property. A true and accurate copy of the Real Estate Contract is annexed hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit K. JABCO marketed the Real Property for sale for approximately 4
years. All parties interested in the Real Property sought to operate it as a bar/restaurant.
The $140,000.00 purchase price presumes the Real Property can be used in that fashion.”
MR. ABBATE-All right, gentlemen. I see that we have two gentlemen at the table. Would
you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourself.
MR. HOGAN-Dan Hogan from Fitzgerald, McPhillips & Cullum, on behalf of the applicant,
JABCO, Inc., and also the Contract Vendees.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
JOHN BOWEN
MR. BOWEN-John Bowen, JABCO, Inc.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Proceed, please.
MR. HOGAN-I believe with respect to the issue of reasonable rate of return, we provided
information, not with regard to every specific denomination inside the Commercial Industrial
zone, but given the space we’re talking about here, 1500 square feet, it really doesn’t give rise
to assembly operation, distribution center, light industry, research and development facility,
self-storage, school or place of worship. You really just can’t have those facilities in such a
small place. Now the two that would possibly be permissible with this size unit would be
office space or retail space, and we did provide an estimate for the demolition, basically the
contractor who submitted a proposal set forth as Exhibit L to the submission, Pinchook &
Buckley Construction Company, did an estimate, claiming that it would cost $125,000 to
basically gut the structure and then to re-build it, renovate it to Code, so that it could be
retail or office space.
MR. ABBATE-And what exhibit is that, Counselor?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. HOGAN-That’s Exhibit L.
MR. ABBATE-Got it. Thank you.
MR. HOGAN-What we did from there is just take, if you were going to debt finance the
$125,000, I contacted the Commercial Loan Department at Glens Falls National, found out
what the index and margin would be for the $125,000, found out that they had a ten year
construction loan, did an amortization based on that, and then the monthly payment was
going to be $1,533. We did also contact Cheryl Hazelton, a known real estate agent and
broker, who estimates 1500 feet of retail office for commercial office space was going to yield
about $1500 a month. Those payments of rent wouldn’t even cover the principle and interest,
let alone the maintenance, insurance, and taxes on the real property. So we think we have at
least sufficiently have shown that there’s no reasonable rate of return on this investment.
Now the only offer that we have for the real property purchase is $140,000, but that’s
assuming that it’s the 40 year use, which was the bar and restaurant, and we think that there
would be a dramatically reduced offer if it was going to be an office or retail space. Now the
other example that I think was given by Staff, regarding whether or not the hardship here
was unique was a comparison to a property that’s also within that Commercial Industrial
zone. That’s The Steakhouse. That was converted, I believe, to an antique dealership, but
correct me if I’m wrong, if the Staff knows, was anything gutted in there? I’ve been by there
several times. I never saw a dumpster out there. So I don’t think there was any increased
renovation costs in that project.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry, I can’t answer that.
MR. HOGAN-So I just don’t think that that’s a consistent example here. I think we’ve got a
unique set of circumstances because the Zoning Code changed after Mr. Bowen suffered the
debilitating injury. He was unable to keep the pre-existing, nonconforming use going during
that 18 month period. He attempted to rent it out. He attempted to sell the real property.
It’s unique here because the other businesses are retail, are light industrial, are distribution
center. They all fit within the character of the Zoning Code. This property is unique in that
it doesn’t, and he has not been able to keep it, the pre-existing use, alive. Couple that with
the inability, over a four year period, to sufficiently market and sell the real property,
suggests that he can’t get a reasonable rate of return on that property.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Is there anything else you’d like to offer at this time?
MR. HOGAN-John, anything?
MR. BOWEN-No. I would just like to let them know, I wasn’t notified about the zoning
change. I was in the hospital. I get my tax bills twice a year, my water bills. I get them with
no problem. I was never notified about a zoning change.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BOWEN-I have received no negative impact from the neighbors. The ones I’ve talked
to are looking for a return to a restaurant and bar, what it was. So they have a place, locally,
to eat.
MR. ABBATE-Did you solicit any type of correspondence from your neighbors indicating
that they have no problems?
MR. BOWEN-Verbally on the phone I did, and they were all notified by mail.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Again, as I said to the other appellants that
have come before us, if there’s anything else you’d like to add while we’re going through the
hearing, please do so. We’ll accept it. Any members of the Board have any questions for the
applicant? Any questions concerning Use Variance No. 21-2006? Okay. Let me continue.
The public hearing will be open for Use Variance No. 21-2006, and those wishing to be heard,
would you be kind enough to raise your hands, I will identify you, then I will ask you to step
to the table, speak into the microphone, state your name and your place of residence. Do we
have anyone in the audience this evening who would like to address Use Variance No. 21-
2006? I see no hands raised. So I’m going to continue.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-I’ll continue on. I’m going to ask members to offer their comments, and I
would like to inform the public that the comments offered by members are directed to the
Chairman, only, and comments expressed by Board members to the Chairman are not open to
debate. I would now ask members to please offer their comments on Use Variance No. 21-
2006, and again, I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we
concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions.
And the evidence relied upon should be specifically stated. This is necessary for an intelligent
Judicial review. Additionally, any position you may take must be based on the regulatory
review criteria of our laws and not simply on subjective preferences or not liking a project,
and due process guarantees that government ensure a fair and open process, and Board
members make decisions on reliable evidence contained in the record of Board deliberations.
In the event any of you wish a motion to include a condition, please, clearly spell out those
conditions so that the Board member introducing the motion may include your condition
with clarity. Do I have a volunteer. I just saw a hand. Mr. Underwood, did you just
volunteer?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I did.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that they substantiated the longstanding use of this property as
a restaurant/bar, or a plain old restaurant. I think that, you know, essentially, when we
reinvent the Code, and we change the zoning, in some of these areas of Town, it has effects
upon the businesses that have been longstanding there, whether they’ve been in continuous
use or not, and I think in this instance here, obviously there were probably times when that
was a very successful business, back in the days of Ceiba Geigy and things like that, when
there were lots of people getting off work and looking for something to drink afterwards, but I
think in this instance here, we’re not going to be altering the neighborhood by allowing this
use to continue on. Although it would be nice to have a Commercial Industrial use
established on site. This is a long neglected area of Town, and any use down there that, you
know, fills the building and provides some kind of monetary recompense for the owners is
probably good, and I think in that respect we can apply the task that we’re supposed to, in
regards to granting variances, and allow this use to continue or start up again in this instance
here. So, I think that, although it’s not permitted in the zone, I don’t think it would have
any negative impact on the community down there. It probably will have a positive one.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Garrand, please.
MR. GARRAND-Yes. I think that they’ve demonstrated that they cannot realize a
reasonable rate of return under what it’s currently zoned as. The hardship, I don’t believe it’s
been self-created. The area was rezoned. It’s been that type of establishment that they’re
looking for it to be. It’s been a bar/restaurant in the past, and I don’t see how it’s going to
change the essential character of the neighborhood by keeping it as a bar or a restaurant.
Simply because the zoning changed, you just can’t change the character of the neighborhood
by taking an establishment that’s been there and using it as that establishment. Basically I’d
be in favor of this proposal, based on that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Garrand. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I think this is a bit of a unique situation. One of the limitations for this
property is its small size relative to what might be required for some industrial use, which is
what the area is zoned for, and it strikes me that it might well be difficult to find either a
retail or an office use that would be interested in locating in this particular area. I’m not
totally confident that a bar/restaurant is going to succeed either, but I think the applicant’s
made a valid point, that a good share of the potential uses within this zone aren’t practical for
this particular piece of property, and I’ll agree, as other members have already indicated, I
think they’ve probably adequately demonstrated that a reasonable return may not be
possible for either an office or a retail use at this location. Given all that, I don’t see much in
the way of downside for approving this as a bar/restaurant. So I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately I’m going to have to disagree.
I would think, looking at the real estate history, there’ve been at least four restaurants in the
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
last 20 years in that location. I would think that having a restaurant business in that spot is
more problematic than it’s worth, but that being said, if you look at the surrounding area,
and all the commercial industrial activity that’s taking place, I think it’s an ideal spot, and
traditionally in real estate it takes longer to move industrial and commercial property. I
don’t think that the applicant has shown that it could not, in fact, be used as an office for a
retail space, an allowable use. The couple of examples that he’s made, relative to the interior
renovations and gutting and so forth, that is not financial data that shows a, you know, an
outcome, in my view. So I’m going to vote against this application.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with Mr. Underwood and Mr. McNulty and Mr.
Garrand. If Mr. Bowen had not ceased operating, then we wouldn’t even be here with this. I
think it’s a very unique situation, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an area where, first of all, I want to
congratulate Mr. Hogan on his presentation. I think, for me, you did answer most of the
questions. I know Mr. Bryant is concerned that you didn’t give information on everything,
but I think you allowed us to use commonsense in saying that this small piece of property
really can’t be used for most of the allowed uses. It’s been a restaurant, as you have
documented, for a long time. If it looks like a restaurant/bar and acts like a restaurant/bar, it
must be a restaurant/bar. I think a good job has been done in proving the four criteria that
we have to unanimously allow, in terms of a Use Variance, a reasonable return. You gave us
numbers about what you could get in terms of rental, what it might cost to renovate, to get
that kind of money. I think the hardship is unique in that particular area that we’re talking
about. I would agree with Mr. Hogan that, or Mr. Bowen, whoever said it, that the
renovations to the old Steakhouse were probably not extensive in allowing it to be used for
retail antiques. Certainly it’s not going to alter the essential character of the neighborhood,
and the alleged hardship is due to a number of reasons, Mr. Bowen’s health, which is always a
problem, and always problematical, and the fact that the zoning was changed while he was
incapacitated. I think the applicant has demonstrated all of the requirements put upon us for
a Use Variance and while we don’t grant them very often, I’m in favor of this one.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. I guess that leaves me. I congratulate counsel. I
think they did an admirable job, one of the best jobs I’ve seen in seven years, in meeting all of
the very difficult criteria for a Use Variance, and specifically I’m convinced that he addressed
the reasonable return, the lack of return is substantial. I think he addressed the alleged
hardship. I think he addressed the essential character of the neighborhood. I think he
addressed the alleged hardship self-created, and I agree with the majority of our Board. I
think the presentation was admirable and you did an excellent job, and I would support the
application. Having said that now, I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to respectfully remind the members that we have the task of
balancing the benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that
State statutes spell out five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered, and
specifically in a Use Variance there are specifically four. Please introduce your motion with
clarity. In the event a member does not understand the motion, advise me and I will request
that the motion be repeated. Having said that, before going into the motion, Mr. Secretary,
would you be kind enough to do a SEQRA for me, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We’re going to go through the Short Environmental Assessment
Form, which they’ve filled out. The applicant is JABCO. The project location is at 7
Boulevard, again, and that’s in the Town of Queensbury. The site has been rezoned to Light
Industrial use, and the applicant seeks a Use Variance for the site to permit a bar/restaurant
which is the historic use on the site. The amount of land effected is .32 acres. It’s a Light
Industrial area, and does the action involve a permit approval or funding from any
governmental agency? The only one that it would require would be a liquor license from New
York State Alcohol Beverage Control and Health Department approval also for the
restaurant use. In reviewing the second page, I think that we can adequately say that when
it comes to our individual votes that there is no adverse action that will result or affects as a
result of this, because it really does not apply in this instance.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Board members, how do you relate to this, yes or no?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. STONE-Yes, as far as I’m concerned.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Could the action result in any adverse effects? And I think that
essentially the answer would be no, in all instances on the form. I don’t think it really applies
in this instance here.
MR. ABBATE-Board members, do we agree?
MR. STONE-I agree.
MRS. HUNT-I agree.
MOTION THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED BY THE
APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS CAUSED BY
THE PROJECT, AS SUCH I MOVE TO ACCEPT IT ON THE BASIS IN ANTICIPATION OF NO
NEGATIVE RESPONSES, AS SUCH I MOVE THAT THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSEMENT FORM BE APPROVED, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-In a six yes to one no, the Short Environmental Assessment Form is
approved. Let me go on to a motion. Is there a motion for Use Variance No. 21-2006?
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 21-2006 JABCO, INC., Introduced by Lewis
Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
7 Boulevard. The applicant seeks to establish a bar and restaurant at 7 Boulevard, and the
applicant requests relief from the allowable uses of the Commercial Industrial zone per 179-4-
020. The applicant has demonstrated to our satisfaction that the four criteria necessary to
obtain a Use Variance have been provided. One, can the applicant realize a reasonable return
provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence.
Counsel for the applicant has shown that the two most possible allowed uses in the area would
not be substantial enough, given the need to do extensive renovations and the possible return
for most of the allowed uses, and that the only thing that seems to be possible, given the
difficulty in selling this property for any of the allowed uses over the past four years has in
fact been nil. The applicant does have an outstanding offer that would be triggered if this
Board would, in fact, agree to a Use Variance. The alleged hardship is unique to the area in
that this is an area of industrial type buildings. The only other building that would
somewhat match this property is a building that was a restaurant that was turned into an
antique store, apparently without any extensive renovation. The requested Use Variance, if
granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the alleged hardship is
not self-created, in the fact that the applicant, Mr. Bowen, was operating the business, a
nonconforming business, when he became ill and could no longer run the business, and during
his absence the zoning was changed to make this use nonconforming.
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Use Variance No. 21-2006 is six yes, one no. As such, Use
Variance No. 21-2006 is approved.
MR. BOWEN-I thank you much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2006 SEQRA TYPE: II GARY R. & BECKY L. HICKS
OWNER(S): TAYLOR HILL PROPERTIES, LLC ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 88 ASH
DRIVE APPLICANT HAS PARTIALLY CONSTRUCTED A ROOF OVERHANG TO COVER
EXISTING RESIDENTIAL SIDEWALK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF.: BP 2005-135 RES. ALT; BP 2002-028 CANOPY;
BP 2001-070 ALT.; BP 2000-273 ALT.; BP 2000-245 DOCK; BP 172 ADDITION WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE: 0.56 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-7 SECTION:
179-4-030
GARY HICKS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2006, Gary R. & Becky L. Hicks, Meeting Date:
March 29, 2006 “Project Location: 88 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes a 275 sq. ft. covered walkway on the North and West sides of the existing
apartment building.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 14-feet of side setback relief (W. side), where 20-feet is the minimum,
additional FAR relief of 6.4% is required (not identified on the agenda for the project), both
requests per § 179-4-030, for the WR-1A zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2005-135: Issued 3/18/05, 1,058 sq. ft. interior residential alteration (unit 1).
BP 2002-028: Issued 4/2/02, for a walkway canopy/roof (East side).
BP 2001-070: Issued 3/1/02, for a 1,100 sq. ft. interior residential alteration.
Staff comments:
The covered walkway should be included in the FAR calculation for the entire site. The
existing floor area totals 6,500 sq. ft. (26.6%). The additional 275.5 sq. ft. of covered
walkway will result in a FAR of 28.4% therefore, relief of 6.4% (over the maximum 22%) is
required.
The existing setback from the W. side property line to the apartment building is 12.33-feet
this proposal would permit a setback of 6-feet. The applicant has stated in his submitted
cover letter that the sole purpose of constructing the covered walkway is to provide safe
access to his tenants.
Included is a letter from the adjacent neighbor to the North (and potentially most impacted)
stating that he supports the construction providing that the applicant stipulate that the
walkway will not be enclosed and will never become additional living space.”
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 15-2006 please approach
the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself, please.
MR. HICKS-Good evening. I’m Gary Hicks, owner of 88 Ash Drive, and I live at 737 Taylor
Hill Road in Granville.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and again, I see you’re not represented by counsel.
MR. HICKS-No.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MR. ABBATE-So if there’s anything during the course of the hearing you don’t understand,
stop us, we’ll be happy to explain it. Anything, during the course of the hearing, you feel that
you’ve neglected to tell us that might help your request, stop us, we’ll be more than happy to
accept the information. So proceed.
MR. HICKS-Okay. Thank you. I started constructing the overhang several months ago, and
Dave Hatin reminded me that we were facing some setback requirements. So we stopped,
came in and applied for the application, and that’s what brought me here tonight. There’s no
personal or really financial gain in this at all. It’s purely for the safety of the four apartments
that all have access through this one area on the northwest corner of the building. The snow
and ice typically would dump off the roof directly onto the sidewalk, which this whole area is
currently concrete. It’s a paved sidewalk that runs towards the lake end of the property, and
turns into a wooden deck. So it goes from concrete to wooden. There is already an overhang
over two sections of this area, and what I’m proposing and what I had started to construct
was to finish following that roofline out to the front, the road side of the property, and
protect that area for the residents. I am asking for setback relief. Currently the building was
13 feet to the property line on the northwest side, and it would be six feet now. I didn’t
imagine any environmental impact whatsoever, given the lay of the property, and if you’ve
been there, I believe you could see that. It never could be or will be living space. It is an
exterior sidewalk with access only to those apartments through that area, and I guess that’s
about all I would have to add. It’s, I thought, pretty simple, turned out to be not so simple I
guess.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Hicks, and again, remember my offer. Any time you
certainly may ask questions or introduce anything else you feel is important. All right. Now
Mr. Hicks has introduced, made his introduction. Do any members of the Board have any
questions for Mr. Hicks?
MR. STONE-I have a question. How old are these apartments? How long has that been
there?
MR. HICKS-1945 the building was constructed.
MR. STONE-Back that far? And always apartments.
MR. HICKS-Well, I’ve only owned the building one year. I understand at least into the
1970’s it has been apartments, so for 30 some odd years.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 15-2006. Do
we have anyone in the public? Yes, sir. Would you be kind enough to come to the table,
speak into the microphone, and identify yourself, place of residence, and then proceed.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-I am Paul Derby and I did submit that letter. I’m just here to re-affirm that
letter.
MR. ABBATE-We will read it into the record. You have my assurances.
MR. DERBY-That’s fine. I am the immediate neighbor. The relief is on my side, and I
support the variance, I do support this variance. I believe it was done for the safety of the
tenants. I don’t see any environmental impacts. I am also President of the Glen Lake
Protective Association. So I always am concerned with those things, and there’s already a
concrete walkway there. So that is not going to add any negative impact to the lake, and Mr.
Hicks has already stipulated that there wouldn’t be any added living space to that, and that
was my only concern with this. So I’m perfectly fine with it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much for your testimony. I appreciate it. Do we have
anyone else in the public who would like to address Area Variance No. 15-2006? Okay.
Hearing none, Mr. Hicks, would you like to come back to the table, please. All right. I’m
going to proceed and move on, and I’m going to ask Board members for their comments, and
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
since there are limited members of the public, I’m not going to go through the fact that, what
I normally do, that comments to the Chairman are not going to be debated, but I am going to
respectfully remind the Board members, again, that we have certain mandates, and I think
you know by now what that is. Do we have any comments? Do we have any volunteers who
wish to comment?
MR. STONE-Yes. I have a question. Where is the water going to go, coming off these roofs?
MR. HICKS-What doesn’t show in this picture is the structure I’m talking about is on the
roadside of the property, on the top left end. It currently does drain down the left side of that
property. Whether it dumps off the roof or it cascades, now, off the additional canopy, it
comes down that same pathway. So there’s no change to any runoff or environmental factors
whatsoever.
MR. STONE-You’re not changing the permeability, because you’re just overhanging
concrete.
MR. HICKS-Not at all. It’s already concrete. It’s already concrete and has been for a long
time.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board, do we have any
further questions from our Board members for Mr. Hicks? Well, hearing none, then I’m going
to move on. The public hearing is now closed for Area Variance No. 15-2006.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask members to remember that we have balancing the
variance against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State Statutes spell out five
statutory criteria, and having said all of that, if there are any types of conditions, please make
them clear so that the member introducing the motion can favorably introduce your
condition as well. Having said that, is there a motion, do I hear a motion for Area Variance
No. 15-2006?
MR. STONE-Are you going to ask us what we like about it or don’t like?
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m going to ask Board members if they wish to comment on Area
Variance No. 15-2006. I have that obligation. Please, do we have any comments from any of
the Board members?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I’ll make a comment.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, go ahead, Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, one of our charges is the safety and welfare of the citizens of
the Town, and I think this project is with that in mind, the safety of your tenants.
MR. HICKS-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-So I’d be in favor, especially since the neighbor who is most affected is in
favor of it, too.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Bryant. Okay. Let me move on, then, to Mr. Garrand.
MR. GARRAND-Well, I don’t think this project will cause any undesirable changes in the
neighborhood. I think it’s a positive thing in the neighborhood. I’ve seen it in the
wintertime, and I know it’s hazardous.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Let’s, then, move right next to Mr. Garrand to Mrs. Hunt,
please.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I have to agree with my two previous Board members. I just have a
question about the FAR relief. That would not be included in our motion, is that it?
MR. ABBATE-Staff, a Board member has a question.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MRS. BARDEN-It should be.
MR. STONE-It’s listed in the relief required.
MR. HICKS-I did put it in the application.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s going from 26.6 to 28.4, I think. So, I mean, it’s pre-existing,
nonconforming already over the Floor Area Ratio, but covered walkway would be included,
and that would increase it a little more.
MRS. HUNT-I was just wondering whether we should include that in our motion.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-When we make it, clean it up.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, Mrs. Hunt. Are you satisfied up to this point?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I am.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you much. Let me move on to Mr. Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would essentially agree with what everyone else has said here. I
think that even though we’re triggering this increase in the permeability here because we’re
bumping up the FAR a little bit, it’s not going to be a negative in this instance. The
applicant has pretty much painted a picture that shows that there’s already a sidewalk there,
water runs down the sidewalk, and if you put a roof over it, it’s just going to run a little
further out to the side. The amount of relief would be considered substantial, due to the FAR
amounts, but most of those are pre-existing on the site, and there’s nothing we can so about
that in this instance here. So in this instance I think that the safety issue overrules our
concerns with any impacts on the Critical Environmental Area on the lake down in front
there, and I think that, you know, I don’t know if this triggers site plan review because it has
to go, because it’s in the CEA or not, something of this magnitude, it seems like a minimal
project. So, if it doesn’t, at the most I think they might require something like some kind of a
catch basin down at the bottom of the hill maybe possibly, but that’s not our purview so I’m
not going to get into that, but I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I can basically agree. I’d be happier if it weren’t quite so close to
the lot line, but in this case the sidewalk’s already there, and I think the purpose for the roof
overhang is certainly safety and the benefit of the residents. So that says that it ought to be
approved. I do have a concern about the runoff. While the runoff was there before and was
running down the cement sidewalk, now there’s a roof there. So the runoff now is probably
going to be running down next to the sidewalk in dirt, rather than on the sidewalk.
MR. HICKS-May I comment on that?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please comment, if you wish, sure.
MR. HICKS-The cement goes all the way, probably eight feet to the property line. So this is
only covering part of that cement area, and it’s not changing the runoff properties at all.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Then that relieves that concern. I’d basically be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I think the fellow Board members have very adequately addressed this thing. I
think particularly Mr. McNulty and Mr. Bryant with the safety issue and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Great. Thank you, Mr. Stone. I agree with my fellow Board members. I
think they’ve covered all the requirements that need to be covered, and I would certainly
support the application. So I will move on and the members know the task of balancing the
benefit of the variance against the impact on the area, and, having said that, is there a
motion for Area Variance No. 15-2006?
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/29/06)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2006 GARY R. & BECKY L. HICKS,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
88 Ash Drive. The applicant proposes a 275 square foot covered walkway on the north and
west sides of the existing apartment building. The applicant requests 14 feet of side setback
relief on the west side where 20 feet is the minimum. Additional Floor Area Ratio relief of
6.4% is required, not identified on the agenda for the project. Both requests are per 179-4-030
for the Waterfront Residential 1A zone. Parcel History: 2005-135, 3/18/05, 1058 square foot
interior residential alteration, Unit One; 2002-028, 4/2/02, for a walkway canopy/roof on the
east side; 2001-070, issued 3/1/02 for 1100 square foot interior residential alteration. Whether
the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? No. Whether it will
result in an undesirable change in the neighborhood or to the character of nearby properties,
no it will not. The request is not substantial, and will the request have adverse physical or
environmental effects, no it will not. Is the difficulty self-created? Also, it is not.
Duly adopted this 29 day of March, 2006, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now, Mrs. Hunt, if you recall, was concerned about Floor Area Ratio.
She wanted a comment to be made.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I think he read it into his motion.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then you’re satisfied, Mrs. Hunt, with the motion?
MRS. HUNT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Great.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 15-2006 is seven yes, zero no. Area Variance
No. 15-2006 is approved, Mr. Hicks.
MR. HICKS-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. This hearing is closed.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
51